Simon Phipps writes: > Given that the website CG has been explicitly designed by the OGB not > to have any content contributors, and that the OGB committee is not > creating content, where does the OGB anticipate that the people who > routinely keep the content fresh will gather?
As least based on what *I* understood from the proposals on the table, I think the above question represents a misunderstanding of the situation. The committee chartered by the OGB is responsible for providing some way to review changes to the common areas of the web site. I don't think _anyone_ is expecting it to generate that content on its own. Instead, community groups will be doing that work and then asking the committee for review and approval when that work touches a common area. I would assume that any reasonably functioning committee would quickly set up ground rules -- for example, creating simple guidelines that say when detailed review is required, and when little or no review would be needed. Otherwise, it'd be mired in details. In other words, what was taken from the website CG was the ability to determine (on its own) what things appear in the common areas. As with any other CG, if that group wants to design bits for the common areas, I see no reason that it shouldn't do so, subject to review. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
