[Design] [General] [Proposal] List consolidation

[Katie Capps Parlante]

OSAF is now in in a phase of the project with a smaller staff and with a 
need to move quickly and be conservative with our resources. To be more 
focused, my goal is to work as *one* team during this phase, no longer 
thinking of ourselves as separate product, desktop, server, qa, and 
management teams.

We've ended all existing regular meetings, and now have one daily 
meeting with all 10 staff members. We're currently doing this on the 
phone while we get our footing, but may eventually transition to IRC.

I'd like to move our work back to the lists -- they've gone a bit quiet 
since the transition announcement.

At the daily meeting we discussed having fewer lists where we conduct 
daily work. Below is a proposal.

Goals:
- Integrate design and engineering discussions
- Use the same space for "chandler project" discussions, ranging from 
product schedule to design discussions to public strategy discussions
- Keep a separate space for people who are interested in the server but 
not the rest of the project
- Only maintain one list for "core" members to discuss strategy and 
organizational business, including relationships with individual people 
and organizations that might not be appropriate to be public. Note that 
this list would include project members who are not staff members. (As 
always, we want a path to that status for people who have never been 
staff members but grow their role into being key project contributors).

The Proposal:
- Change the charter of chandler-dev -- make this list into the 
"Chandler Project" list. Move work from design@ and general@ onto this 
list, and stop using design@ and general at . Move work from service-dev@ 
onto this list as well.
- Continue using cosmo-dev for largely technical conversations about the 
server. If the conversation is a "product" or "project" conversation, 
use chandler-dev instead.
- With the altered charter of chandler-dev, the desktop would not have a 
separate list. The supporting argument is that people who are interested 
in the desktop are likely interested in the whole project -- desktop 
plugins will likely want to sync on the server, etc. Cosmo (Chandler 
Server) is more likely to have a development community that is 
interested in the server for its own sake.
- I've made a similar consolidation proposal on the private lists.

Other osaf lists that would remain active and have the same charter:
announce
chandler-users
commits-cosmo
commits-l10n
commits-pyicu
commits-sandbox
commits-vobject
commits-zanshin
google-analytics-reports
pyicu-dev
pylucene-dev
windmill-commits
windmill-dev

Lists osaf is currently hosting but perhaps should move elsewhere? We'll 
work with Lisa if we ought to move them.
ietf-caldav
ietf-calsify
ietf-carddav
ietf-http-auth

Thoughts welcome. Please respond to the proposal by end-of-day Friday, 
on general at . Sooner is appreciated if you have strong objections or a 
counter proposal. Apologies for the cross-posting -- it is one of the 
things we're trying to avoid with the new proposal!

Cheers,
Katie
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general