Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > Instead, I'd be curious how you, Derek, the Advocacy > Group, and the Website Group would feel about forming an OGB-sponsored > committee to review and approve these changes (perhaps they could even > start making the changes themselves, freeing your team to do other > work). The committee, containing an OGB member or 2 and a couple of > other interested people - probably but not necessarily from Advocacy > and/or Website - would have a free hand to approve noncontroversial > changes but would be expected to alert the OGB as a whole to anything > likely to trigger dissent. Such a policy would definitely have worked > in this case even without any specific rules.
First, we'd have to create a Website Community Group, and that CG should be lead on all website issues. Since the website cuts across the entire community, though, I'd agree with an OGB component as you suggest. I'm sure Advocacy would be happy to contribute to that effort. Derek has done a great job at balancing all those who have an interest in the site, but it's time to formalize how site changes occur. Otherwise, it's not fair to Derek. So, I'd support your proposal. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
