Peter-Paul Koch wrote: > As to rewriting it: my original idea was that anyone not agreeing with a > certain paragraph should write his own version below mine. Of course if your > whole proposal is radically different from mine you should write a new page > (CaseStudyII ?). gotcha > I'd like us to have several versions to choose from in a week or so. > Several people have given good feedback (but not, of course, rewritten any > paragraphs): > > Matt: Who creates this document? The group or the SC? > Dean: Number of members too small (I said 7 max) > Madhu: Restructuring categories is an IA question, apart from a necessary > database restructuring > Isaac: Mail should be handled by Monkey Hear > Dan: Mail should be handled by whichever group is appropriate, add a select > to the form to choose the subject of the mail > Many people: Get rid of the 'Monkey' names > > So people disagree with Moneky Speak's scope, name and number of members, > but not with the general outline of how it should work (including detailed > bits about electing members, access policy and so on). > In addition, the scope of Monkey Speak is far smaller than I thought. I > assumed restructuring the categories would be an internal decision: not so. > It would also involve Monkey See and Monkey Run. I never considered this, > but it is of course correct. heh.. i see what you're saying. i will do my very best to input a new page on there tonite. > Maybe we should create a special committee to draw up Monkey Group (or > whatever name) charters, subject to a forum vote? The groups themselves can > change the charters, of course, but we have to start somewhere, give some > sort of clue as to how the organization should develop, so that people have > something to agree or disagree with. > > Anyone in? Anyone totally opposed? ya, i'd be in, and think its a good idea. its kind of like training wheels if we're going this route, right? right now, we have one big group which could just as easily be any MonkeyGroup(or jackson 5 member!). we realize that *our* group needs to split our responsibilities up, and are putting the wheels in motion to do so. ((the scenrio could very well, and probably will, happen to one of the groups someday)) the main group says, "Hey, ok. Split off a working group and present your findings back to us" and the working group(or whatever term) would do just that. the general idea of the change has been accepted, the working group is in place to actually do the work to make that happen, and find out the easiest/best/whatever way to do so. when/if those findings are reached by the working group, they're presented back up to the main group ala "Heres what we think is the best/easiest/whatever way to accomplish the task" and hopefully the main group says, "Rock. thanks, good work, looks good, lets roll." so what i'm hopefully getting at is forming a group like you suggest peter would be pretty much the way (i at least) would hope the new groups would work. i've got some working examples that maybe we could start out with, which unfortunatly didn't get published on the wiki before it was announced. sound ok?