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

[A. Erickson]

> 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.

Two things:
1. Haven't the frontend people or any people, really, been encouraged to
do just that?
2. With the overlap in participation currently (which I expect will
continue unless we limit membership), isn't it fair to say that there is
representation all around?
3. It has been argued and I think it's a fair point that too many people
for input can slow things down.

I don't know what the resolution is here but I guess I'm sort of
challenging your assertion on those points. I'm not sure that either one
of us is presenting a completely accurate picture. Anyone else care to
weigh in?

- ae