RE: [SAC] Committee/list merge proposal - was Re: [SAC] RE: [Web Comm] Re: Migration planning meeting

I think we need to look at this as more than just merging two committees
or mailing lists.

The reason that there is so much super-crossposting is that there is not
a clear enough separation of duties between the committees. I believe
that a large part of WebCom's work is really in the realm of VisCom,
while a smaller subset is in the realm of SAC. There is very little
that is uniquely WebCom's, and most of that would benefit from the
experience of VisCom or SAC members anyway.

My proposal would be to split WebCom's mandate between SAC and VisCom,
and dissolve WebCom. I don't have enough ego attached to being the
WebCom chair to fight for it, and would be happy to channel that time
into something more directly productive like content creation or helping
with the infrastructure changeover, Drupal customisation, etc...

Note, this is a lot like what was initially proposed by mpg a number of
months ago.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Neteler [mailto:neteler.osgeo@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 07:59
To: OSGeo-Board
Cc: sac@sac.osgeo.org; OSGeo-WebCom
Subject: [SAC] Committee/list merge proposal - was Re: [SAC] RE: [Web
Comm] Re: Migration planning meeting

(taking Frank's comment here from other lists posting)

On 10/26/06, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com> wrote:
...

PS. I'd really like to encourage everyone involved to join the sac

list.

These super cross posting results in very corrupted subject lines and
drive me crazy. IMHO webcom should primariliy be consulted for drupal

web site type discussions. And your (Jason) involvement in sac is
enough to ensure webcom infrastructure needs should be met.

... another option, as I suggested at our F2F/CH, is to merge some
committees to get rid of some friction and the bloody crossposting.
For example: WebCom and VisCom. They are often too close together to
remain two committees. Especially for newcomers it's fairly confusing
(for us as well, see above).

Both WebCom and VisCom could at least operate on the same list.
Or: Merge WebCom and SAC lists (SAC traffic is low enough).

Just my 0.02 cents,
Markus

Jody,

I agree that this is the way that the committees are currently set up, but frankly it isn't working.

Mandates aside, WebCom is currently involved in two areas. The first is generating a marketing-based user experience which requires a plan (which you're doing a great job on) and content. Apart from the fact that it's on the web, this is very close to what VisCom is doing in physical media. The second is to more technology-based, and aligns closely with SAC's responsibilities. The result is that in order to get stuff done the majority of our work needs to be communicated with at least one other committee. As well, the level of involvement in WebCom is not all that high. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but apart from that my feeling is that this is partially because of the overlap in mandates between the three committees.

I think that in a volunteer-based organisation the board needs to be pragmatic about setting direction. There is no ability to "make it so", so they have to find ways of making it work within the resources available. Either that, or make resources available by making committee participation a requirement for project membership. :slight_smile: This doesn't solve Frank's problem with most communications involving more than one committee though.

Jason

________________________________

From: Jody Garnett [mailto:jgarnett@refractions.net]
Sent: Sat 2006-10-28 10:18 PM
To: dev@webcommittee.osgeo.org
Cc: Jason Birch; sac@sac.osgeo.org; OSGeo-Board; dev@visibilitycommittee.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [Web Comm] Re: [OSGeo-Board] RE: [SAC] Committee/list merge proposal - was Re: [SAC] RE: [Web Comm] Re: Migration planning meeting

I am kind out of the loop here:
Q: what is SAC?

Comment: in reviewing the mandate of the two committee's VisCom seemed
rather focused on conferences and the like, and webcom on service (user,
community and developer). I should hope that it is the board setting
the communication agenda here and delegating out to us volunteers as needed.

Jody

My proposal would be to split WebCom's mandate between SAC and VisCom,
and dissolve WebCom. I don't have enough ego attached to being the
WebCom chair to fight for it, and would be happy to channel that time
into something more directly productive like content creation or helping
with the infrastructure changeover, Drupal customisation, etc...

I agree. My head hurts and this could help.

Tyler

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@webcommittee.osgeo.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@webcommittee.osgeo.org

dear Jody, all,

Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 10:18:06PM -0700, Jody Garnett wrote:

Comment: in reviewing the mandate of the two committee's VisCom seemed
rather focused on conferences and the like, and webcom on service (user,
community and developer). I should hope that it is the board setting
the communication agenda here and delegating out to us volunteers as needed.

You think that the board should create and impose a decision at this
point, about how volunteers should be organising themselves? In a way
this can be hard because the board is nine different people with
varying levels of awareness of and interest in the activities of the
different committees. To make any kind of collective decision there
needs to be a reasonably precise and commonly understood description
of what is at issue. It is tempting to be reactive and to wait until
people talk about what is wrong with the world as they experience it.
It is harder to be proactive as one hydra head on a body of 9 people.

If this who-is-doing-quite-what issue is holding people back from
contributing energy then we-collectively-everyone-involved have the
responsibility to resolve it, yes. I am not sure that "as a board
member" i want to be responsible unless there is something crisis-like
or seemingly irresolvable going on.

My opinion on the committees is they are little more than vehicles for
mailing lists and next to no use anyway - just jobs to do and people
to do them - and that one big mailing list and a lot of ad-hoc,
archived cc lists would do better. You know my usual line and lack of
followthrough in these structural fantasies, though.

If you really think this is something that the board should be making
a decision about then i would like to ask for a wiki page summarising
what would change and how it would work for the better, that would be
much appreciated.

cheers,

jo