Please please please let's not call
them SIGs! For the sake of avoiding confusion with the existing
SIGs and their reporting structure. I realize that we use WG in
a slightly non-standard way compared to other orgs, but if we have
ongoing persistent cross-project thematically-organized groups,
let's keep calling them Working Groups, OK? Adding time-bound
tightly scoped Task Forces is fine (and what we're already doing,
essentially). Too much semantic thrash makes it difficult to keep
everyone on board, is my main point.
I am for considering cutting down on
the number of Working Groups by rebooting from zero and
re-chartering. I believe if we set the expectation that the
working groups be driven by the projects themselves - that is, the
rationale for their formation, the bulk of activity, the work
products created - come from active maintainers and developers on
the existing projects, and not from people who are not writing
code, that will self-regulate the number well and I believe give
them more implicit teeth. Imagine restarting from zero WGs, and
saying to add a new one, there must be not just interest but
commitment from a majority of projects to have at least a
representative attend and use it to coordinate their related
efforts. E.g., if the projects don't care enough about
coordinating cross-project around the topic of Architecture or
Identity to ensure they are involved and attending the calls and
participating in conversations and aligning their dev roadmaps,
then don't create it. We need some form of cross-project info
sharing outside the context of TSC calls, thematically scoped and
ongoing, but not so many that efforts are diffused or fail to hit
critical mass. I think that would address criticisms of the WG
model to date.
On 9/12/19 9:22 AM, Mic Bowman wrote:
per the brief discussion in the TSC this morning,
the core proposal from the WG task force is that we replace
working groups with technology focused SIGs (where discussions
happen) and task forces focused on a short term deliverable
(where the deliverable must be completed in less than 6 months,
the list of proposals is here:
please comment (and, while we have withdrawn proposals 1
and 2, please read the discussion on them for context).
specifically... here's where we're at:
- Proposal 3: Working groups should be dropped.
- Proposal 4: Formalize "task force" as a task-specific
group with limited scope and fixed time to complete.
- Proposal 5: A task-force will be required to create a
"proposal" and the TSC must approve the proposal.
- Proposal 6: The task-force leader will be required to
report on completion of deliverables.
- Proposal 7: A task-force that requires additional time,
must request an extension from the TSC.
- Proposal 8: Existing working groups will be converted
into a technology focused SIG.
Executive Director, Hyperledger