Membership policy?

[Ben Clinkinbeard]

Now that we are announcing our existence we're starting to get
membership requests. Some guy named Matt Chotin applied and I went
ahead and let him in. :)

Besides special cases like Matt, I think we should keep membership
closed for now. We need this to remain more focused and productive
than something like flexcoders where the sheer volume of posts makes
progress on complex issues near impossible. My suggestion is to allow
any of the Flex Team access that requests it, but other than that keep
things closed unless there is a nomination by existing members. I
think we can use the uservoice site Sim set up (flexsdk.uservoice.com)
to field and solicit feedback and input from the wider community.

Thoughts?

[Tom Chiverton]

2009/2/10 Ben Clinkinbeard <ben.clin...@gmail.com>:
> Thoughts?

Seems fine.
In future, where we currently give @Adobe a special pass, we should
probably include anyone with commit rights to SVN.

Existing member nomination works well for places like CFGURU where the
same policy applies.
But I don't think we'd except even that at the mo - we need to keep a focus.

Oh, and 'hi' to Matt, hope not too much of a shock :-)
--
Tom

[Matt Chotin]

I admit to not having read the guidelines or previous posts yet either.  If the goal is for you guys to come to conclusions in private and then use the OS forums to present a unified voice I’m OK backing out of this too and keeping the team out.  Or if you want the team to observe only and not post while you guys fight things out that’s OK too.  Definitely trying to keep the number of places that I have to monitor down, but I don’t want folks going so far off in a direction that varies from where Adobe thinks we should go with no chance of recovery because you kept it private for too long.  If you guys are good about reporting what the thinking is and using the OS forums effectively then I and (other Adobeans) don’t need to be here.

Matt

[Justin Reidy]

While I agree that keeping membership semi-closed right now is best, I
think it will be important for us to step up our use of sites like
uservoice. Obviously right now we need to focus on the Fx issue, but
once that issue is successfully dealt with, I think we will need to
start to think about how we plan on delivering on the community
adoption / fostering aspects of the SDK Committee's mission. Whether
we have an official committee blog, or just keep a collection of pages
with stances on key issues, etc, it will be important for us to reach
out to the Flex developer community as much as possible.

[Ben Stucki]

Hey Matt,

I'm sure Ben Clinkinbeard will want to weigh in on this too, but I think we would love to see input from people involved in the SDK. At the same time I don't know that it's required either (we know you're a busy dude). We do plan to bring important items we're talking about to your attention, but you should still feel welcome to be part of the conversation. It's just people talking to people.

We're basically just finding areas where we all agree the SDK needs attention and unifying our efforts around it. I think you could certainly help inform our decisions if you were keeping an eye on the conversation, but if it's important hopefully we rally some action in time. Whether that means organizing "official" type recommendations we'd like to see, encouraging more community participation in areas, or just mass blogging, I don't think we know yet. Probably a little bit of everything.

[Ben Clinkinbeard]

Just a quick note before heading offline for a while, I think we could just operate under the assumption that we will use the forums when appropriate, and as a middle ground could request input here if needed. I don't think Matt or other SDK teamers really need to monitor every post here, but it would be great if we could solicit input and feedback as needed, operating under the assumption that would be fairly rare.

I hesitate to speak for the whole group but I think we all see the ideal role of this committee as one that would provide us a bit more access to internal thinking and goings on than the general community, as well as a hope that our collective opinion would carry more weight than Joe Flexdeveloper. At the same time, we all understand there will be certain info that has to remain strictly within Adobe's walls. Hopefully that is a relationship Adobe finds valuable and viable.

Ben

[Tom Chiverton]

2009/2/10 Matt Chotin <mch...@adobe.com>:

> keeping the team out.  Or if you want the team to observe only and not post
> while you guys fight things out that’s OK too.

That was how I though it might work...

> I don’t want folks
> going so far off in a direction that varies from where Adobe thinks we
> should go with no chance of recovery because you kept it private for too
> long.

... to stop that happening :-)

> If you guys are good about reporting what the thinking is and using
> the OS forums effectively then I and (other Adobeans) don’t need to be here.

Yup, that'd be cool too. It's not like I'm (or anyone else) is going
to unsubscribe from or not post in other places.

Guess we'll just see how it ends up working out.

--
Tom

[Matt Chotin]

OK, I’ll stick around in monitoring mode for a while then.  

As far as this committee getting more access to internal thinking, I don’t know where I come down on that.  I’m not going to put you under NDA so it seems hard to justify presenting something to one list and keeping it private from another.  But if this group proves to have as members folks who represent a good cross-section of the community (or well-represent a specific section) then it’s easier to take the recommendations as a reflection of a larger group.

Matt

think we can use the uservoice site Sim set up (flexsdk.uservoice.com <http://flexsdk.uservoice.com> )