[DotGNU]DotGNU Working Group meeting

[Peter Minten]

Hi folks,

at this weeks dotgnu meeting, after the usual pnet stuff was done, we (ajmitch,
Chris Smith and I) discussed the working groups. We have agreed to hold a DotGNU
Working Group meetings at sunday 10 november at 9 UTC. The agenda for the
meeting is:

* Getting the missing WG leader positions filled
* Electing the DotGNU WG leader
* WG stuff
* DotGNU stuff

--

This is the current situation about the Working Groups:
* Foundation code (pnet and libs) - Nobody
* Authorization - Nobody
* Architecture - Chris Smith
* Webservices - Nobody
* Business - Nobody
* PR - Gopal V.
* Philosophy - Peter Minten

Any developer of DotGNU can become a WG leader, not only project leaders and
major developers.

--

We also briefly discussed what I call the 3 powers system of DotGNU, which shows
the relationship between the DG WG, SC and the Great Assembly (a nice word for
all the developers and users). The 3 powers system looks a bit like a normal
democracy.

The first power is the DotGNU Working Group (remember: the DotGNU WG consists of
all the WG leaders). This is in essence the decision making power, like a
cabinet.

The second power is the Steering Committee. The SC is the high court of DotGNU.

The third power is the Great Assembly. The GA is the parliament.

The DG WG makes plans, to realize them however it needs support from the GA. If
there is a conflict between developers and other developers (since the DG WG is
put up out of developers too this includes the DG WG) the SC can be asked to
make a judgement.

--

A question arose whether the DotGNU Working Group should have a leader. This is
a Good Idea, since it gives DotGNU a face to the outside world. As a consequence
however the DotGNU leader must have good knowledge of all parts of DotGNU and
good PR skills. Also it should be obvious that the DotGNU WG leader should be a
member of the DotGNU WG.

Other positions were also proposed, like a secretary position.

--

Another question that arose was if the DotGNU WG should get it's own mailing
list. I believe this is a good idea since it will make filtering out important
(DG WG stuff is always more important than the next pnet bug :-) messages
easier.

--

Well that's all people.

Greetings,

Peter