RFC: Fedora Community Working Group charter (draft)

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:04:36 -0500
inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:

..snip...

> I'd like to hear from some of the people who have actually been doing
> the problem resolution to see what they think about the effectiveness
> of resolving problems closer to their source?!

I could see it being good or bad. ;) 

So we have: 

FAmSCo: ambassadors community issues. 
FESCo: package maintainer / SIGs community issues. 
irc-support-sig: IRC community issues (#fedora/#fedora-social only)
Other irc admins: their particular #fedora* channels
Hall monitors: mailing list issues 
Moderators of other mailing lists: their mailing list issues. 
Websites sig: planet

In some cases, handling issues close to the source works well, as that
community understands it's communication channel and issues with it. In
other cases it goes poorly, as the people are too close to the problem
and can't see the issues. 

I could see several ways a CWG _could_ help: 

a) Be a layer above all the above groups. Just a way to escalate an
issue up and get more people looking at it and seeing how we could make
the community better or handle it in a better way. This could also
cause some friction as the above groups may feel the CWG is usurping
their authority. It could also be good for some groups as that would
give them a place to tell people to escalate to. It could make users
happier that their concerns were heard by a larger group, even if no
action was taken. 

b) We could replace all the mediation/escalation process of the above
groups with a single CWG stop. The downsides here would be that it
could be a lot of work, day to day stuff would still need to be handled
by the particular group. On the plus side people would have one place
to come with concerns or to be heard. Groups may not want a CWG to tell
them how to mediate concerns directly however. 

c) Help where needed. This could be mixed with a) above, but just have
CWG available to help where above groups have concerns or lots of users
are seeing issues, and where CWG thinks things could be improved. In
some cases the CWG could see issues in community where above groups
haven't yet and help smooth things out. 

Anyhow, just some off the cuff thoughts... will ponder on it more. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20101018/826d876e/attachment.bin