Proposal: DP Sub-groups

[Chris Saad]

So what does everyone think about doing some sub-groups who can take
ownership over various parts of the project.

I am thinking something along the lines of:

1. Steering Group (They get to be bossy)
2. Technical Blueprint Group (in charge of guiding the design goals,
use cases and technical blueprint development)
3. Policy Blueprint Group (in charge of guiding the policy goals, uses
cases and policy blueprint development
4. Evangelism Group (in charge of blogging, outreach and documentation
such as the ActionPacks)
5. Implementation Group (in charge of helping to consult with and
promote examples of those implementing actual code)

Does this seem like a good idea?

If so do these groups seem like a good starting point?

Which groups would you like to participate in?

Which groups would you like to lead?

Chris

[Peepel]

Yes - I agree that there needs to be separate sections so people can
feel ownership and contribute where there skills are best used, rather
then one large group.

I think that we need one Champion for each group who can be the
central point and that person should also be part of the steering
group. That person is voted or designated as the head and is to make
the decisions for that group, so that this does not end up as
management by committee - and everyone knows how successful that can
be ;)

I think the technical and policy groups are close enough that they can
be one so that way its a very easy structure

Steering to set the general direction (management)
Technical to do the work (Development)
Evangelism to make sure people know how to find the information
(Marketing)
Implementation - helping clients to make it happen (Support)

Thanks

Steve

[Zef Hemel]

I'm all for this, even if it was just to make the amount of emails
smaller and match my interests more. Separate mailing lists I would
say!

I agree that merging the blueprint groups seems like a reasonable idea.

Group I would like to participate in: evangelism group. I would love
to participate in other groups, but simply won't have time.

-- Zef

--
Zef Hemel
E-Mail: z...@zefhemel.com
Phone: (+31) (0)6 156 19 280
Blog: http://www.zefhemel.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/zef

[richard.pendergast]

I think that's what I've been hoping to achieve by setting up
Practical Portability. Without wanting to necessarily get in amongst
the steering group I have a real interest in actually seeing something
happening on the ground. Separation of groups is a great idea. It
saves on information overload.

I'd love to be part of an implementation group and if you are looking
for leaders or evangelists (and you're happy with old people that
aren't necessarily all that cool), then I'll happily stick my hand up
for the implementation effort. This is something I was looking to get
pretty heavily involved in anyway, so it adds very little in the way
of workload.

Richard

On Jan 18, 2:07 am, "Zef Hemel" <zefhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm all for this, even if it was just to make the amount of emails
> smaller and match my interests more. Separate mailing lists I would
> say!
>
> I agree that merging the blueprint groups seems like a reasonable idea.
>
> Group I would like to participate in: evangelism group. I would love
> to participate in other groups, but simply won't have time.
>
> -- Zef
>

[Jon]

Separating the effort into smaller sub-work groups makes a lot of
sense.

I would like to be part of the Implementation Group to help lower the
barrier for entry for the "average Joe" developer. I believe in
addition to consulting and promotion, we could create tutorials, code
sample, packages, libraries and build a developer community.

Jon

[Robyn Tippins]

Great idea.  I'll probably fall into 3 (policy) or 4 (evangelism). 

--
Robyn Tippins
408-718-0886
PM, Developer Tools Yahoo! Platforms
Sleepyblogger.com | Gamingandtech.com

[Elias Bizannes]

well I suppose I am 1 and 4 because that's what I've been doing.

My question is how would these groups get determined? Does anyone
nominate themselves, and then within those subgroups, they elect
officers to manage the group on a rotating basis?

On Jan 18, 5:01 am, "Robyn Tippins" <robyntipp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great idea.  I'll probably fall into 3 (policy) or 4 (evangelism).
>
> --
> Robyn Tippins
> 408-718-0886
> PM, Developer Tools Yahoo! Platforms
> Sleepyblogger.com | Gamingandtech.com
>

> On Jan 17, 2008 8:24 AM, Jon <jon.cianciu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Separating the effort into smaller sub-work groups makes a lot of
> > sense.
>
> > I would like to be part of the Implementation Group to help lower the
> > barrier for entry for the "average Joe" developer. I believe in
> > addition to consulting and promotion, we could create tutorials, code
> > sample, packages, libraries and build a developer community.
>

> > Jon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Chris Saad]

Excellent - looks like there is some interest.

I have created a page - please add your names and recruit peeps!

http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-public/web/action-groups

[Chris Saad]

Ok so people have started signing up to the "Action Groups" over on
the wiki page.

http://groups.google.com/group/dataportability-public/web/action-groups

Please also join the associated Google Group (the group is linked).

Let's get the names all filled in so we can get the party started :)

Chris

[kveton]

> Ok so people have started signing up to the "Action Groups" over on
> the wiki page.

Chris & Co.: it seems like the "Action Groups" are the place that will
really provide the meat of this Data Portability effort. Would it
make sense to de-emphasize the idea of the workgroup and focus on the
"Action Groups"? I'm sure the most common criticism will be "but what
have they gotten done?" and the answer will be pretty plain over on
the "Action Groups" side of the house.

Speaking of which ... I need to get over there and sign up ...

- Scott

[Elias Bizannes]

Action group is definately where work will be done. As a
decentralised, non hierarchical movement, it's going to take us a
while to collaborate on a system of working, but I think we are
getting there.

This initiative is too big for just a workgroup; it is a movement that
is redefining the economics on the web, as DP is challenging companies
from thinking data is their competitive advantage. There is a lot what
I mean by that, but I leave that for another time.

Lets make the workgroup what is has become - an official
representation from a company of the DP initiative (just a sounding
board) ie, they just sit there and observe. I am disgusted by some
individuals who are on the workgroup, contribute nothing, and then
publicly criticise the DP initiative. Every single member of the
workgroup has an obligation to make it work - if there is not enough
being done, every workgroup member has to take the blame as much as
they want to take the credit of shaping the future of the web.

[Michael Pick]

Agreed - the need for milestones and concrete action is definitely
here, and the action groups should do an excellent job of moving
things forward. Might also be an effective means for separating the
people willing to get their hands dirty from those more keen on
dropping names when it suits their agenda.

My $00.02

[Mike Reynolds]

Sounds good Chris. I'm signing up for Evangelism. -Mike