[ogb-discuss] Advocacy Community Proposal

[Ben Rockwood]

Keith M Wesolowski wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 09:41:49PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote:
>
>   
>> Committee's are bodies of bureaucrats that follow through on some action 
>> because the parent body is unable or unwilling. 
>>     
>
> This seems overly harsh.  Webster's says a committee is "a body of
> persons delegated or assigned to consider, investigate, act on, or
> report on some matter."  There is nothing requiring a committee to be
> bureaucratic or nontechnical.
>
>   
>> I have envisioned, and discussed with Stephen Hahn over a year ago, a 
>> division between technical and non-technical community sub-groups to 
>> which I call projects (technical) and initiatives (non-technical). 
>>     
>
> What determines whether something is technical or nontechnical?  More
> importantly, the Constitution doesn't define initiatives, only
> projects.  We could, of course, say that initiative is just an alias
> for non-technical project, but I fail to see what that buys us.
>
> Group-sponsored committees sound an awful lot like your SIGs, and
> appear to have the same purpose.  If you like the name SIG better
> (perhaps it conveys less bureaucracy and more action), that's fine.  I
> don't really care what it's called; I care what it does.  What it does
> is allow a subset of a Group with a specific *ongoing* interest to
> discuss and to act.  Another plus?  You don't need OGB approval to
> form one; it's part of a Group's internal governance.  In fact I'm
> slightly disappointed this idea didn't originally come from a Group.
>
>   
They are absolutely not SIGs.  Be clear:

"Project": Technical Contributory Sub-Community Entity (eg: iSCSI Target 
Project)
"Initiative": Non-Technical Contributory Sub-Community Entity (eg: 
Immigrants Initiative)
"SIG": Non-Contributory Entity that is not directly related to any one 
Community (eg: SysAdmin)

As for the comment "I'm slightly disappointed this idea didn't 
originally come from a Group".  Feel free to put any of my community 
group hats on, then you can put your mind at ease.



>> I would ask that the OGB consider using these terms instead.
>>     
>
> We will certainly consider all these issues at our next meeting, but
> in all honesty I tell you that I personally believe we've spent far
> too long on this already, and have in fact reached agreement twice in
> that time only to have late input disrupt that agreement.  It's
> certainly important that we come up with the right structures and
> definitions needed for Groups to make progress, but we can't spend
> forever doing it.
>
>   

Feel free to plop out a resolution any time and let us all know.   
Something so simple as a name change and absorption of one group into 
another seems to be a real chore.  I have yet to understand why.

benr.