Roy T. Fielding wrote: > I would have expected the main website content to be a project of > the Advocacy CG.
It really wasn't considered when we talked about the formation of Advocacy. We'd generate content, sure, but we really didn't have in mind being lead or sponsoring projects to lead the creation of the main site's content. If that's the way it works out, than that's fine, I suppose. Actually, now that you characterize it this way (as a project, I mean), it would save us from having to create another Community Group. > 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. The current Website Project, which I believe resulted from the release of the site source, is sponsored by the Tools CG. > [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.] I'm not sure if those who want to work on site content are all there, to be honest. I can think of a few people for sure, but others can certainly get involved from wherever they sit. But even if we make "Website Content" a project of the Advocacy CG, that doesn't necessarily solve the concern many have about one project potentially making decisions that affect the entire community. In this case, it would involve the site. That's what I think Keith was getting at with his suggestion to add an OGB component to the site content issue. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
