Re: Infrastructure, was: Proposal: New web site maintainers

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Luke <..hidden..> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> However there is also a  basic question to the community:
>>
>> What can we do to facilitate cooperation and contribution from the community?

> If the site managers need to communicate beyond simple email, they can
> sort it out among themselves.  Why should you have to worry about that in
> the startup phase?  Don't lay so much groundwork that they only have one
> path to follow, and you end up holding hands to the extent that nothing
> has changed.

Ok.  That's a fair point.  Get site maintainers in place first.  Then
let the maintainers decide what's needed.


> If you don't like the result, advise them.  If you still don't like it,
> fire them and find somebody else.  But the "management by central
> committee" approach has not really worked to date, so why should a version
> of it with a few extra people work now?

Well, the management by central committee has worked very well at some
things.  It just hasn't worked well with regard to infrastructure
management.  I wouldn't support getting rid of the core committee.
I'd rather just let us spend our time on governance rather than
day-to-day stuff since that tends to get neglected.
>
> That aside, a (protected) forum on the site itself for site issues seems
> like a more logical approach.

Not a bad idea.

Basically what I am hoping to do with this discussion is get a better
handle on the ideas and issues so that we on the core committee have
something to discuss regarding getting and supporting additional
involvement in this area.  As I said before the ideas I was floating
are pretty green and hopefully the discussion of them will help all of
us understand the best way forward.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers