This idea came out of #218 and was discussed at today's working group meeting.
The basic idea is: if we want to get more people involved in workstation, then the working group name is somewhat misleading - it implies that, to work on workstation, you have to be part of the working group. We've considered a range of alternative names, including "Workstation SIG", "Workstation Steering Group", and "Workstation Steering Committee".
Some of these names potentially imply different governance arrangements. There's also a question as to whether we want to create a supplementary group that contributors can join. For example, we could have a Workstation Steering Group, which has voting powers, and a broader Workstation SIG, which doesn't have decision making power but is a vehicle for a broader contributor community.
Of course, a contributor group doesn't necessarily need formal arrangements or a sign-up element...
For the supplementary group for contributors, do you mean new contributors or all contributors.
Also the name "Workstation steering committee" sounds more like they have administrative duties .
"Workstation SIG" or "SIG-Workstation". sounds more inclusive and community like.
I think the idea was all contributors...
That is somewhat true, in that the group does need to sign off on technical changes. But yes, "committee" does have bureaucratic connotations.
"Steering group" seems like a better name than "working group" to me, but I'm not sure it's worth the hassle of changing the name. Need to decide this soon, before tackling #225.
I shared my intention to drop the name change with the WG yesterday, and got a generally positive response, so closing this. Feel free to shout if that seems wrong.
Metadata Update from @aday: - Issue close_status updated to: Won't fix - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.