On Dec 20, 2007, at 16:51, James Carlson wrote: > 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.
Yet it appears from the fact that neither the OGB's star chamber nor the website CG's CCs have content roles that the OGB expects all CG content to be in perfect for-publication condition from its originators. Further, it seems to be anticipated that all non-text elements and non-CG-originated materials will be supplied by polymaths in other CGs. It seems there is no role anticipated for people to maintain the design, news content, graphics and other elements and materials in places such as the home page, nor for anyone to have a view over editorial consistency for the home page and similar pages (about, licensing etc). > 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. Except you collectively did more than that; you appear to have engineered the composition of both groups to exclude certain contributors from leadership. The website CG uniquely has no mandate to innovate or create or to recognise those who do, since that has been reserved to the OGB, yet the OGB has not created a body to do so either. S.
