Middleton, Dan <dan.middleton@...>
I agree with this idea of rebooting anything not formed in the last 6 months and structuring them around a clear time-bounded deliverable based on project involvement.
From: <tsc@...> on behalf of Brian Behlendorf <bbehlendorf@...>
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:
Executive Director, Hyperledger