Community Working Group status?

[María Leandro]

Hello again.

I'm sorry for what I'm about to say, but I don't think Board has nothing to
do with this. Team has to be gathered first because experience tell us that
if we set up a 4 people team, and only 4 show up, at the end, if we are
lucky, only one stands.

What if we just call people, let them do the work, and based on how things
go we determine more rules?

Lets let people do the work that we need without so much bureaucratic
procedures pls.

Passwords can be handled by the same people and this handlers can be
leaders of each team that gets together.

2012/8/29 Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com>

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:05:57 -0700
> Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Taking off my board member hat for a moment, I think that there's a
> > very real benefit to having a group of moderators who are not on the
> > Fedora Board who can work to mediate conflicts.  Two reasons I see
> > are:
> >
> > * There are times I'd like mediation where one of the parties is the
> > Board itself.  This necessitates a third party that is not the Board.
>
> Well, the same could be said for the situation when one of the parties
> is on the CWG? Or should there be a CWG^prime to handle those. ;)
>
> > * Criteria for selecting and electing Board members is not driven
> > solely by the question of how good they are at moderating
> > discussions, helping other people reach compromises, and stay neutral
> > in cases of conflicts.  Staying neutral is an opposite trait from the
> > Board's role in making decisions when there is a failed agreed upon
> > action.
>
> True.
>
> > So if the current CWG members would like to disband, I would like to
> > see a new group of moderators formed.  If no one else steps up,
> > perhaps I can work on that after I leave the Board (although, I'll
> > still be on the FPC which has its own share of issues that would
> > benefit from an outside moderator from time to time).
>
> If there's a need for the CWG, I could see it continuing, but at the
> very least the following need to happen:
>
> * The board needs to agree it's a long term body (the wiki page still
>   says "This charter will stand until one year after ratification (Oct
>   25, 2010), at which point it will be revisited and an updated charter
>   submitted for renewal and continuation of the Community Working
>   Group."
>
> * The board should determine how members are added/replaced. We had a
>   member bow out a long time ago with no replacement. Is there a time
>   limit for serving? (All the usual replacement and succession stuff).
>
> kevin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
>



-- 
tatica
Maria Gracia Leandro
http://www.tatica.org
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:tatica
LinuxUser= 440285  GPG Public Key: E1CDCC56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20120829/5cf822a1/attachment.html>