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

[Josh Berkus]

Greg,

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

I think this is an excellent idea, but would like to make some refinements.

First, I think we need a different name than "SIG".  I'd imagine that
the phrase "Special Interest" is problematic in Washington, and "SIG"
doesn't cover teams which are working to produce something, e.g.
"projects".  So we could use a term which is both for
"advocacy/discussion" groups, and for "working development groups".
Suggestions needed.

Second, I think that every SIG/Project/whatever should be under a
working group organizationally.  If there's no clear place to put them
under a WG, then it's a sign that we have the wrong WG's; each WG should
cover a broad enough area that we can put other efforts under it.

Examples:

Marketing, PR & Referenceability
	Case Studies Project
	PR Project

Transparency
	Sunshine SIG
	Open Data SIG
	CivicDB Project

Training & Advocacy
	Federal Employees SIG
	Training Materials Project


-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com