[infrastructure] [working-groups] [Infrastructure] new working groups

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Gunnar Hellekson wrote:

>> Curious as to others' thoughts on (1) this proposed group, and (2) if we 
>> should develop some sort of criteria that we post on the website for ppl 
>> that want to form their own group.
>
> I think having horizontal groups is a great idea.
>
> Up until this moment, the approval process has been a "Yes" from either 
> John Scott or myself. I don't particularly enjoy the power, but I'm also 
> loathe to create a more elaborate criteria until we have demand that 
> requires it.
>
> This is exactly the kind of thing we can sort out on the working-groups 
> list!

My $0.02: the goal should be to have "official" work for which OSA, as an 
organization, takes a high degree of accountability.  But this should not 
preclude interested parties from starting their own efforts under the OSA 
flag.  Ergo:

1. Two tiers: the "working group" (WG), which has some degree of 
"officialness", and the "special interest group" (SIG), which doesn't.

2. Make it Dead Simple for any member of OSA to start their own SIG, and 
get a mailing list and wiki space to go with it.

3. Reserve WG status for those important issues that the Board sees fit to 
focus special attention on.

4. Governance for SIG = whoever starts the SIG.  Governance for WG = 
appointment by the Board.

5. Crazy renegade SIGs can be scuttled by the Board, but this power should 
be used very sparingly.

6. All SIGs should occasionally be reviewed by the Board, and SIGs that 
are clearly doing good work and gaining momentum should be promoted to WG 
status.

This is more or less the governance model we use in Fedora, and it works 
pretty well.

This also implies, btw, that Infrastructure is essentially a working 
group.

--g

--
Computer Science professors should be teaching open source.
Help make it happen.   Visit http://teachingopensource.org.