Chaz and all -
I second this recommendation. When a decision has been made to move a topic from google list to IWG forum, a closing message should be sent to the google list that the topic has graduated and further discussion must take place elsewhere. This will support the goals of reducing noise in the channel and clarifying the process/workflow.
Quoting Chaz Cheadle <email@example.com>
I would suggest we need a 'forum' for website development/technology
discussions, and then when a decision is made that the idea is fully speced
out and then moved to Redmine. I also think the IWG forum on the current
website should more of a public facing exchange of ideas. This provides a
three stage process. Public ideas/concerns <-> internal IWG
discussion/spec/implementation <-> Redmine: development/progress tracking
The public can suggest something like a twitter feed widget and hash out
ideas and concerns on the NYCGA-IWG forum. Once it seems the project is
ready for actual development it moves internal for the detailed discussion
of exact technologies and who will do the work/qa/etc and assemble the team.
Then the project is entered into Redmine where the work is done. Progress
reports can be sent back to the Internal IWG, and information on progress
can be then published to the NYCGA-IWG forum.
The public need not know what PHP is being coded, and the coders necessarily
need to hear people opinions of the icon size. Relavant information can be
passed by the internal IWG group. I think this may even play very well into
the Agile model.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:29 AM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
hi all -
It was great to meet the team who have been working so hard to make the new
website happen and also to chart the vision for future work by this group.
Thanks for all your efforts!
I have a process question:
I have IA recommendations for the new website.
Should this kind of input be posted to:
a. this google group list
b. the Internet working group forum on the new website
Can we clarify the intended use of these three channels, and also some
roles responsibilities for the people doing the real work of the group?
I am uncomfortable with the idea of independently creating tasks in redmine
with no sense of who will be prioritizing and assigning the tasks - without
that, my input can easily add to noise that will detract from other
potentially more critical work.
I have an observation about redmine that I will send out separately.