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

Michele Foster michele at
Wed May 1 20:37:35 CDT 2002


Wasn't meant to be an insult .. I wasn't seeing where the current forum
group was in your list of names.  Which was why I wasn't sure if you were
referring to theforum group as the frontend or not.

We know we're going to have one large development/working group.  I'm all
for there being sub-groups that lead off of the main working group (much
like in the original diagram).  What I want to try to avoid having happen is
design/IA discussions taking place, all decisions being made, and then a
comp. or list of requirements, etc. getting sent to the development group to
implement.  We've had this problem in the past where one group decides what
happens, and then hands off the requirements to the other group without that
group (thesite in this case) being given the opportunity to provide input
into the project from the ground up.

Personally, I'd rather we separate out the large working group into areas of
work/development, as opposed to disciplines... and we do this by using the
areas we already have.  beo, leo, deo, weo/teo, meo, etc.  I think it would
work well to have smaller working groups for each of them.  For example, and
this is just off the top of my head, and trying to remember past, recent
discussions ..

Working group for beo = William, Aard, Dan (??)
Working group for deo = Simon, GC?, Ken Kloger (?)  (I've forgotten who's
working on this)
Working group for leo = Dan, Matt, Dean, John H., Me, etc.
Working group for meo = Dan, Matt, Dean ...
Working group for aeo (the newer one) = Seb, GC, Dan, Me ..

Now those interested in design, IA issues, etc. don't need to be on each of
the above individual working groups.  Rather, they need to be a part of the
overall larger Working Group, the one that deals with "everything" per se.
And each of the smaller working groups need to have at least one person
that's also a part of the overall group to ensure that information flows
back and forth.  So, if the leo working group needs to create some new
pages, and the layout of those pages is going to break the overall
consistent design we want for all  *.eo sites, then they'll need to bring up
the issue with the overall Working Group .. i.e. where the global CSS/Design
stuff is consistent.

Am I making any sense or would a picture be of more use?  I've given this a
lot of thought ;) .. but damned if my notes aren't still packed.  Anyway,
it'll have to wait until I get back next week, but I'll bring it up at the
Toronto Beervolt and see if I can refine my idea a little better with input
from Aard, Matt, Rudy, Jeff, Chris, etc.  I've got 8 hours on a train to
kill ;)



----- Original Message -----
From: "isaac" <isaac at>

| I disagree. The thinking group is the steering committee.
| And frontend/thinking are completely different. How is me hacking around
| Photoshop for 50 hours any less "working" than someone customising open
| they've pulled from sourceforge?
| Frontend/Backend are just split so that coders don't have to listen to IA
| junk, and the designers don't have to listen to db gear. The thinking and
| personalities are, I think, different enough to warrant some sense of
| separation at least.

More information about the theforum mailing list