On Nov 2, 2007, at 8:53 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote: > 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.
I would have expected the main website content to be a project of the Advocacy CG. CGs should be centered around the people making product/content decisions. A website/infrastructure CG would be applicable for folks managing the services (making decisions about how to run them, not what should be in the content), IMO. [Note: this presumes that the advocacy CG is doing its work on public mailing lists, and that the people interested in editing the main website are participating in that community.] ....Roy
