[Members] Re: Member/Board Interactivity

[Egbert Eich]

Barton C Massey writes:
 > In message <1161695612.6871.14.camel at localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
 > > 	One response (from B Massey) to this member/board interactivity
 > > question included making board committees to target specific areas of
 > > concern, and subcommittees to solve specific problems in those areas.
 > 
 > Sorry, no communications cookie for me---I didn't mean more
 > than one level.  I think my "subcommittees" are isomorphic
 > to Egbert's "working groups"; I should have used his term,
 > which is better.  It's also what you suggest:
 > 

Working groups are different from committees: committees are defined
in the By-Laws and require that at least the head of the group is a 
Member. Working Groups are much more technically oriented and don't
have any such requirement.

 > > Maybe just a set of committees, each started as an issue
 > > is decided important enough by the board, with mixed
 > > board/member membership.
 > 
 > JG expressed the concern that working groups are too big a
 > hammer for the kind of nails that X.org has to drive, and
 > that they tend to take on a life of their own and get out of
 > control.  This is a legitimate concern, although I think our
 > conception of a working group is a lot more lowercase than
 > the ISO-type structures that JG may have in mind.  I agree
 > with JG that working groups should arise out of concerns
 > expressed to the committee by the Board, and should have a
 > carefully chosen charter, milestones, and sunset period.  I
 > think they're necessary, though---the Board has neither the
 > time nor the charge to micro-manage work on specific
 > concerns.

JG certainly has experience with IETF working groups. This
is a totally different breed of cats than what we are looking
at. We will need to find the right balance for each group
individually - dependent on the subject.

Cheers,
	Egbert.