At the Fedora Project Board call today, one thing we talked about is the desire for a slightly more active CWG. Right now, it appears that the board is the first level of escalation, and we hope that could be the last resort.
In fact, I think I'd like to see a bit more of an activist role in the duities of "aid[ing] in communication, defusing tense situations, and keeping conversations flowing along productive paths" -- we've had a couple of threads on both the users and devel mailing lists recently which could use that.
The wiki page says "Currently, the Community Working Group is not meeting. Once reformulated, regular meetings will recommence." What would it take to get that rolling again?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
At the Fedora Project Board call today, one thing we talked about is the desire for a slightly more active CWG. Right now, it appears that the board is the first level of escalation, and we hope that could be the last resort.
That's fine, if that's what you want. When it was originally created, the CWG was meant to be reactive -- we traditionally haven't gotten involved in a situation (as a group) until we've been specifically asked to. I'm happy to jump in a be more proactive when mailing list discussions get out of hand -- I just don't want to overstep our charter.
It probably wouldn't hurt to have the Board let us know exactly what and how they'd like us to work, and go back through and see who is still willing/able to help out in the CWG. In the meantime, I'll be more vigilant in the mailing lists about trying to help people "be excellent".
-- Jared Smith
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 14:22 -0400, Jared K. Smith wrote:
That's fine, if that's what you want. When it was originally created, the CWG was meant to be reactive -- we traditionally haven't gotten involved in a situation (as a group) until we've been specifically asked to. I'm happy to jump in a be more proactive when mailing list discussions get out of hand -- I just don't want to overstep our charter.
It probably wouldn't hurt to have the Board let us know exactly what and how they'd like us to work, and go back through and see who is still willing/able to help out in the CWG. In the meantime, I'll be more vigilant in the mailing lists about trying to help people "be excellent".
+1
I do keep an eye on the mailing lists, but more often than not issues are settled by the list moderators - or in specific cases, things are escalated directly to the board.
We're still the initial members the board had chosen. I think we were supposed to set up methods for the "reformulation" but we haven't gotten down to it yet - probably because we haven't had to be too active on this front.