Group Names .. was .. Re: [Theforum] Charter Working Group

[A. Erickson]

>
> Message: 14
> From: "Michele Foster" <michele at wordpro.on.ca>
> To: <theforum at lists.evolt.org>
> Subject: Group Names .. was .. Re: [Theforum] Charter Working Group
> Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:25:21 -0400
> Organization: WordPro Services
> Reply-To: theforum at lists.evolt.org
>
> This might be premature .. but I don't think we should be
> using frontend/backend as group names.  That's too confusing
> with actual workflow/development issues.  IOW, separating
> design and development of the sites/projects is what is
> implied.  And, that's not a good idea.

I'm actually quite comfortable with it, having worked that way in a
number of organizations and capacities. I can imagine there would be
people that would work on both committees and we could develop a
communication back and forth (always integral) process so that everyone
can stay on the same page.

> How about the Thinking Group and the Working Group?
>
> Where the thinking group is like theforum is now, and the
> working group is like thesite mailing list is now?

I see, in your example, that thinking=steering. IA and design and
community front-end stuff can stay on the front-end and typically needs
more work than "thinking."

> However,
> do we want the Working Group to include meo/list admin stuff?

See, I think you're going down the path of sorting everyone out in the
same way we have them now. Not to say that's necessarily a bad thing....

>  For those of us managing projects, it gets rather difficult
> to know where the line is at the moment.  Let's make sure we
> define this explicitly within the future structure.

True. I think all lines will be somewhat organic in order for work to be
done. People can float in and out of projects as necessary.

I'd also like to see people allowed to take ownership and responsibility
for projects, sometimes that ownership gets taken away without asking, I
think, by the people making the code. It's understandable, though.

- amanda