From wulf at ggf.org Fri Sep 2 16:59:07 2005 From: wulf at ggf.org (Julie Wulf-Knoerzer) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 16:59:07 -0500 Subject: [CCGT] No call on Tuesday Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20050902134822.04afc008@localhost> Hi all, As Geoffrey is unavailable, we will not be holding Tuesday's Community Council telecon. Have a good weekend, Julie +++++++++++++++++++ Julie Wulf-Knoerzer Manager of Community Development Global Grid Forum wulf at ggf.org ph. 630/252-7163 fax 630/252-4466 From gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu Sat Sep 3 14:47:13 2005 From: gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoffrey Fox) Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:47:13 -0500 Subject: [CCGT] Thoughts on Community Council Message-ID: <4319FDC1.40602@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> I welcome comments on these thoughts and suggested reorganization whose main ideas are A Community Plan designed to support communities rather than just exploiting GGF events Splitting of council roles into an advisory board and area directors as expediters Some of you have seen this in an earlier version and it was received with some interest by Mark Linesch and the new vice chair for the community council Robert Fogel I will share all comments with them to help plan the next steps for GGF -- : : Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CommunityCouncilThoughts_aug31-05.ppt Type: application/powerpoint Size: 110080 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ccgt/attachments/20050903/24da9bb3/attachment.bin From gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu Thu Sep 8 16:02:49 2005 From: gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoffrey Fox) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 16:02:49 -0500 Subject: [CCGT] Checking the pulse of the Community Council Message-ID: <4320A6F9.7090700@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> I sent the enclosed notes on a possible organization of community council But I got no response. I wonder if that meant a) Things are chugging along and organization is not important b) You were so amazed by brilliance of plan that you can't put words to email c) The plan seemed same as before d) You were so amazed by stupidity of plan that you can't put words to email e) You are too busy right now f) ggf emails are on your SPAM filter list ----------------------------------- I welcome comments on these thoughts and suggested reorganization whose main ideas are: A Community Plan designed to support communities rather than just exploiting GGF events Splitting of council roles into an advisory board and area directors as expediters Some of you have seen this in an earlier version and it was received with some interest by Mark Linesch and the new vice chair for the community council Robert Fogel I will share all comments with them to help plan the next steps for GGF -- : : Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CommunityCouncilThoughts_aug31-05.ppt Type: application/powerpoint Size: 110080 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ccgt/attachments/20050908/5f0806a1/attachment.bin From newby at arsc.edu Thu Sep 8 16:58:05 2005 From: newby at arsc.edu (Gregory Newby) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:58:05 -0800 Subject: [CCGT] Checking the pulse of the Community Council In-Reply-To: <4320A6F9.7090700@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> References: <4320A6F9.7090700@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> Message-ID: <20050908215805.GA4233@perseus-e0.arsc.edu> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Geoffrey Fox wrote: > I sent the enclosed notes on a possible organization of community council > But I got no response. I wonder if that meant > a) Things are chugging along and organization is not important > b) You were so amazed by brilliance of plan that you can't put words to > email > c) The plan seemed same as before > d) You were so amazed by stupidity of plan that you can't put words to email > e) You are too busy right now > f) ggf emails are on your SPAM filter list > > ----------------------------------- > I welcome comments on these thoughts and suggested reorganization whose > main ideas are: > A Community Plan designed to support communities rather than just > exploiting GGF events > Splitting of council roles into an advisory board and area directors as > expediters I think your ideas are right-on, Geoffrey. Highlights for me: - success @ GGF14 - need more & smaller events - lack of GGF credibility/presence at some ongoing projects is a problem - high overhead for GFSG participation for likely community leaders is a problem >From my point of view, I'd say that the Community Council is already empowered to take most (nearly all) of the steps you mentioned. Some sort of 18-month calendar of possible activities, and expected changes in the status quo, would be good to present to the GFSG, perhaps at the upcoming f2f at GGF15. One thing that is not so clear to me: how has recruiting gone for bringing in more people with ideas for community events, making community ties, and the like? It seems the NOMCOM made some progress, but your PPT points out that there needs to be a lot of activity that won't originate in the GFSG (or community advisory council). -- Greg From craig at rush.aero.org Thu Sep 8 19:29:59 2005 From: craig at rush.aero.org (Craig Lee) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:29:59 -0700 Subject: [CCGT] Checking the pulse of the Community Council In-Reply-To: <20050908215805.GA4233@perseus-e0.arsc.edu> References: <4320A6F9.7090700@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> <20050908215805.GA4233@perseus-e0.arsc.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20050908171053.02b76d30@rush.aero.org> g) lack of humor in original email lulled me into complacency My interpretation is that in addition to what we are doing now, e.g., community tracks at GGF meeting, we also need to do the dual, e.g., promote and support relatively small activities at the meetings of other communities. That is to say, rather than inviting a few people from other groups to talk at GGF meeting, we try to get ourselves invited to talk at the other group's meetings. Presumably this would be lower overhead for the other group and possibly GGF would get larger exposure to the other group. This is essentially a more distributed operation with the number of meetings limited only by resources (time, staffing and money to attend other group meetings). Making the connections to get invited and then having effective presentations that speak to a particular community are essential. Follow-up would also be very necessary. I think this is all quite consistent with your Council Thoughts but certainly should be thought through some more. --Craig At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Gregory Newby wrote: >On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Geoffrey Fox wrote: > > I sent the enclosed notes on a possible organization of community council > > But I got no response. I wonder if that meant > > a) Things are chugging along and organization is not important > > b) You were so amazed by brilliance of plan that you can't put words to > > email > > c) The plan seemed same as before > > d) You were so amazed by stupidity of plan that you can't put words to > email > > e) You are too busy right now > > f) ggf emails are on your SPAM filter list > > > > ----------------------------------- > > I welcome comments on these thoughts and suggested reorganization whose > > main ideas are: > > A Community Plan designed to support communities rather than just > > exploiting GGF events > > Splitting of council roles into an advisory board and area directors as > > expediters > >I think your ideas are right-on, Geoffrey. Highlights for me: > >- success @ GGF14 >- need more & smaller events >- lack of GGF credibility/presence at some ongoing projects > is a problem >- high overhead for GFSG participation for likely community > leaders is a problem > > >From my point of view, I'd say that the Community Council is >already empowered to take most (nearly all) of the steps >you mentioned. Some sort of 18-month calendar of possible >activities, and expected changes in the status quo, would >be good to present to the GFSG, perhaps at the upcoming f2f >at GGF15. > >One thing that is not so clear to me: how has recruiting >gone for bringing in more people with ideas for community >events, making community ties, and the like? It seems the >NOMCOM made some progress, but your PPT points out that there >needs to be a lot of activity that won't originate in >the GFSG (or community advisory council). > -- Greg From gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu Thu Sep 8 20:47:07 2005 From: gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoffrey Fox) Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:47:07 -0500 Subject: [CCGT] Checking the pulse of the Community Council In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20050908171053.02b76d30@rush.aero.org> References: <4320A6F9.7090700@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> <20050908215805.GA4233@perseus-e0.arsc.edu> <6.0.1.1.1.20050908171053.02b76d30@rush.aero.org> Message-ID: <4320E99B.5060706@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> Here is a humourless reply so it can be ignored ..... As well as add-ons as you describe, I was thinking of idea of "GGF Community only meetings" organized to support a few communities e.g. a 2 day Midwest regional GGF community meeting in spring or summer (at a random place like Bloomington IN) where Midwest designation meant organizing committee came from Midwest. It would be aimed to support national communities and provide a US meeting between Boston 2005 and Boston 2006 Craig Lee wrote: > > g) lack of humor in original email lulled me into complacency > > My interpretation is that in addition to what we are doing now, > e.g., community tracks at GGF meeting, we also need to do > the dual, e.g., promote and support relatively small activities > at the meetings of other communities. That is to say, rather > than inviting a few people from other groups to talk at GGF meeting, > we try to get ourselves invited to talk at the other group's meetings. > Presumably this would be lower overhead for the other group > and possibly GGF would get larger exposure to the other group. > > This is essentially a more distributed operation with the > number of meetings limited only by resources (time, staffing > and money to attend other group meetings). Making the > connections to get invited and then having effective presentations > that speak to a particular community are essential. Follow-up > would also be very necessary. I think this is all quite consistent > with your Council Thoughts but certainly should be thought > through some more. > > --Craig > > At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Gregory Newby wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Geoffrey Fox wrote: >> > I sent the enclosed notes on a possible organization of community >> council >> > But I got no response. I wonder if that meant >> > a) Things are chugging along and organization is not important >> > b) You were so amazed by brilliance of plan that you can't put >> words to >> > email >> > c) The plan seemed same as before >> > d) You were so amazed by stupidity of plan that you can't put words >> to email >> > e) You are too busy right now >> > f) ggf emails are on your SPAM filter list >> > >> > ----------------------------------- >> > I welcome comments on these thoughts and suggested reorganization >> whose >> > main ideas are: >> > A Community Plan designed to support communities rather than just >> > exploiting GGF events >> > Splitting of council roles into an advisory board and area >> directors as >> > expediters >> >> I think your ideas are right-on, Geoffrey. Highlights for me: >> >> - success @ GGF14 >> - need more & smaller events >> - lack of GGF credibility/presence at some ongoing projects >> is a problem >> - high overhead for GFSG participation for likely community >> leaders is a problem >> >> >From my point of view, I'd say that the Community Council is >> already empowered to take most (nearly all) of the steps >> you mentioned. Some sort of 18-month calendar of possible >> activities, and expected changes in the status quo, would >> be good to present to the GFSG, perhaps at the upcoming f2f >> at GGF15. >> >> One thing that is not so clear to me: how has recruiting >> gone for bringing in more people with ideas for community >> events, making community ties, and the like? It seems the >> NOMCOM made some progress, but your PPT points out that there >> needs to be a lot of activity that won't originate in >> the GFSG (or community advisory council). >> -- Greg > > > -- : : Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 From newby at arsc.edu Fri Sep 9 10:59:44 2005 From: newby at arsc.edu (Gregory Newby) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:59:44 -0800 Subject: [CCGT] Checking the pulse of the Community Council In-Reply-To: <4320E99B.5060706@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> References: <4320A6F9.7090700@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> <20050908215805.GA4233@perseus-e0.arsc.edu> <6.0.1.1.1.20050908171053.02b76d30@rush.aero.org> <4320E99B.5060706@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> Message-ID: <20050909155944.GA5630@perseus.local> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:47:07PM -0500, Geoffrey Fox wrote: > Here is a humourless reply so it can be ignored ..... > > As well as add-ons as you describe, I was thinking of idea of > "GGF Community only meetings" organized to support a few > communities > e.g. a 2 day Midwest regional GGF community meeting > in spring or summer (at a random place like Bloomington IN) > where Midwest designation meant organizing committee > came from Midwest. It would be aimed to support national > communities and provide a US meeting between Boston 2005 > and Boston 2006 I think this is a great idea, and might be easiest to start as regional university-based events, perhaps tied to favorite campus groups such as IEEE or ACM (get the students involved!). Another related idea is tying to other conferences.... BOFs or sessions...for a brief event. I wish we had been organized enough to do this at Supercomputing '05, but there are plenty of other conferences. -- Greg > Craig Lee wrote: > > > > >g) lack of humor in original email lulled me into complacency > > > >My interpretation is that in addition to what we are doing now, > >e.g., community tracks at GGF meeting, we also need to do > >the dual, e.g., promote and support relatively small activities > >at the meetings of other communities. That is to say, rather > >than inviting a few people from other groups to talk at GGF meeting, > >we try to get ourselves invited to talk at the other group's meetings. > >Presumably this would be lower overhead for the other group > >and possibly GGF would get larger exposure to the other group. > > > >This is essentially a more distributed operation with the > >number of meetings limited only by resources (time, staffing > >and money to attend other group meetings). Making the > >connections to get invited and then having effective presentations > >that speak to a particular community are essential. Follow-up > >would also be very necessary. I think this is all quite consistent > >with your Council Thoughts but certainly should be thought > >through some more. > > > >--Craig > > > >At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Gregory Newby wrote: > > > >>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Geoffrey Fox wrote: > >>> I sent the enclosed notes on a possible organization of community > >>council > >>> But I got no response. I wonder if that meant > >>> a) Things are chugging along and organization is not important > >>> b) You were so amazed by brilliance of plan that you can't put > >>words to > >>> email > >>> c) The plan seemed same as before > >>> d) You were so amazed by stupidity of plan that you can't put words > >>to email > >>> e) You are too busy right now > >>> f) ggf emails are on your SPAM filter list > >>> > >>> ----------------------------------- > >>> I welcome comments on these thoughts and suggested reorganization > >>whose > >>> main ideas are: > >>> A Community Plan designed to support communities rather than just > >>> exploiting GGF events > >>> Splitting of council roles into an advisory board and area > >>directors as > >>> expediters > >> > >>I think your ideas are right-on, Geoffrey. Highlights for me: > >> > >>- success @ GGF14 > >>- need more & smaller events > >>- lack of GGF credibility/presence at some ongoing projects > >> is a problem > >>- high overhead for GFSG participation for likely community > >> leaders is a problem > >> > >>>From my point of view, I'd say that the Community Council is > >>already empowered to take most (nearly all) of the steps > >>you mentioned. Some sort of 18-month calendar of possible > >>activities, and expected changes in the status quo, would > >>be good to present to the GFSG, perhaps at the upcoming f2f > >>at GGF15. > >> > >>One thing that is not so clear to me: how has recruiting > >>gone for bringing in more people with ideas for community > >>events, making community ties, and the like? It seems the > >>NOMCOM made some progress, but your PPT points out that there > >>needs to be a lot of activity that won't originate in > >>the GFSG (or community advisory council). > >> -- Greg > > > > > > > > -- > : > : Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org > : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 > From craig at rush.aero.org Fri Sep 9 11:06:07 2005 From: craig at rush.aero.org (Craig Lee) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:06:07 -0700 Subject: [CCGT] Checking the pulse of the Community Council In-Reply-To: <4320E99B.5060706@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> References: <4320A6F9.7090700@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> <20050908215805.GA4233@perseus-e0.arsc.edu> <6.0.1.1.1.20050908171053.02b76d30@rush.aero.org> <4320E99B.5060706@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20050909083601.0354fbe0@rush.aero.org> I think a US meeting between Boston 05 and 06 is needed so this would be a good opportunity to try a community-only meeting. Since the implicit benefit of community being co-located with standards is getting the practitioners, developers and standards producers all in the same building and hopefully talking, we must ask ourselves what benefit could we expect from a community-only meeting? What benefit would prospective attendees expect? While we could offer a peer-reviewed proceedings of some sort, what we really want to do is _promote adoption_. This would mean identifying stumbling blocks, starting with those for particular app domains and then finding the common ones, and building a road map for adoption. We need an understanding of the situation and a plan for moving forward. Of course, such road map plans have to be tempered against the need to do something now. (Remember the discussion last week about interoperability w/ Catlett and Blatecky!) Another thing that struck me on the GFSG telecon this week was the notion of GGF delegates talking to a major commercial concern in private to promote adoption and avoid any distractions from industry speculation on the direction of major commercial concern. It would seem that GGF should be doing more of this. No only for getting technical agreement on standards, but also for understanding the stumbling blocks for commercial adoption. Many commercial concerns do not want to publically talk about their IT strategies since this may be their competitive edge. It is hard to build community under these circumstances. --Craig At 06:47 PM 9/8/2005, Geoffrey Fox wrote: >Here is a humourless reply so it can be ignored ..... > >As well as add-ons as you describe, I was thinking of idea of >"GGF Community only meetings" organized to support a few >communities >e.g. a 2 day Midwest regional GGF community meeting >in spring or summer (at a random place like Bloomington IN) >where Midwest designation meant organizing committee >came from Midwest. It would be aimed to support national >communities and provide a US meeting between Boston 2005 >and Boston 2006 > >Craig Lee wrote: > >> >>g) lack of humor in original email lulled me into complacency >> >>My interpretation is that in addition to what we are doing now, >>e.g., community tracks at GGF meeting, we also need to do >>the dual, e.g., promote and support relatively small activities >>at the meetings of other communities. That is to say, rather >>than inviting a few people from other groups to talk at GGF meeting, >>we try to get ourselves invited to talk at the other group's meetings. >>Presumably this would be lower overhead for the other group >>and possibly GGF would get larger exposure to the other group. >> >>This is essentially a more distributed operation with the >>number of meetings limited only by resources (time, staffing >>and money to attend other group meetings). Making the >>connections to get invited and then having effective presentations >>that speak to a particular community are essential. Follow-up >>would also be very necessary. I think this is all quite consistent >>with your Council Thoughts but certainly should be thought >>through some more. >> >>--Craig >> >>At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Gregory Newby wrote: >> >>>On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Geoffrey Fox wrote: >>> > I sent the enclosed notes on a possible organization of community council >>> > But I got no response. I wonder if that meant >>> > a) Things are chugging along and organization is not important >>> > b) You were so amazed by brilliance of plan that you can't put words to >>> > email >>> > c) The plan seemed same as before >>> > d) You were so amazed by stupidity of plan that you can't put words >>> to email >>> > e) You are too busy right now >>> > f) ggf emails are on your SPAM filter list >>> > >>> > ----------------------------------- >>> > I welcome comments on these thoughts and suggested reorganization whose >>> > main ideas are: >>> > A Community Plan designed to support communities rather than just >>> > exploiting GGF events >>> > Splitting of council roles into an advisory board and area directors as >>> > expediters >>> >>>I think your ideas are right-on, Geoffrey. Highlights for me: >>> >>>- success @ GGF14 >>>- need more & smaller events >>>- lack of GGF credibility/presence at some ongoing projects >>> is a problem >>>- high overhead for GFSG participation for likely community >>> leaders is a problem >>> >>> >From my point of view, I'd say that the Community Council is >>>already empowered to take most (nearly all) of the steps >>>you mentioned. Some sort of 18-month calendar of possible >>>activities, and expected changes in the status quo, would >>>be good to present to the GFSG, perhaps at the upcoming f2f >>>at GGF15. >>> >>>One thing that is not so clear to me: how has recruiting >>>gone for bringing in more people with ideas for community >>>events, making community ties, and the like? It seems the >>>NOMCOM made some progress, but your PPT points out that there >>>needs to be a lot of activity that won't originate in >>>the GFSG (or community advisory council). >>> -- Greg >> >> > >-- >: >: Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org >: Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 From gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu Fri Sep 9 13:32:34 2005 From: gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoffrey Fox) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:32:34 -0500 Subject: [CCGT] Checking the pulse of the Community Council In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.1.20050909083601.0354fbe0@rush.aero.org> References: <4320A6F9.7090700@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> <20050908215805.GA4233@perseus-e0.arsc.edu> <6.0.1.1.1.20050908171053.02b76d30@rush.aero.org> <4320E99B.5060706@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> <6.0.1.1.1.20050909083601.0354fbe0@rush.aero.org> Message-ID: <4321D542.807@grids.ucs.indiana.edu> These are all good points I assume that one can get good synergies between different communities as well as between community and standards One of course would not exclude standards -- maybe OGSA could hold a F2F juxtaposed or coincident to community meeting? I would assume you would organize as for GGF15 community Advertise for "activities" on GGF web site and leaders fill in their forms for tutorials./workshops etc. Craig Lee wrote: > > I think a US meeting between Boston 05 and 06 is needed > so this would be a good opportunity to try a community-only meeting. > > Since the implicit benefit of community being co-located with > standards is getting the practitioners, developers and standards > producers > all in the same building and hopefully talking, we must ask ourselves > what benefit could we expect from a community-only meeting? > What benefit would prospective attendees expect? > > While we could offer a peer-reviewed proceedings of some sort, > what we really want to do is _promote adoption_. This would > mean identifying stumbling blocks, starting with those for particular > app domains and then finding the common ones, and building > a road map for adoption. We need an understanding of the > situation and a plan for moving forward. > > Of course, such road map plans have to be tempered against > the need to do something now. (Remember the discussion > last week about interoperability w/ Catlett and Blatecky!) > > Another thing that struck me on the GFSG telecon this week > was the notion of GGF delegates talking to a major commercial > concern in private to promote adoption and avoid any distractions > from industry speculation on the direction of major commercial > concern. It would seem that GGF should be doing more of this. > No only for getting technical agreement on standards, but also > for understanding the stumbling blocks for commercial adoption. > Many commercial concerns do not want to publically talk about > their IT strategies since this may be their competitive edge. > It is hard to build community under these circumstances. > > --Craig > > > At 06:47 PM 9/8/2005, Geoffrey Fox wrote: > >> Here is a humourless reply so it can be ignored ..... >> >> As well as add-ons as you describe, I was thinking of idea of >> "GGF Community only meetings" organized to support a few >> communities >> e.g. a 2 day Midwest regional GGF community meeting >> in spring or summer (at a random place like Bloomington IN) >> where Midwest designation meant organizing committee >> came from Midwest. It would be aimed to support national >> communities and provide a US meeting between Boston 2005 >> and Boston 2006 >> >> Craig Lee wrote: >> >>> >>> g) lack of humor in original email lulled me into complacency >>> >>> My interpretation is that in addition to what we are doing now, >>> e.g., community tracks at GGF meeting, we also need to do >>> the dual, e.g., promote and support relatively small activities >>> at the meetings of other communities. That is to say, rather >>> than inviting a few people from other groups to talk at GGF meeting, >>> we try to get ourselves invited to talk at the other group's meetings. >>> Presumably this would be lower overhead for the other group >>> and possibly GGF would get larger exposure to the other group. >>> >>> This is essentially a more distributed operation with the >>> number of meetings limited only by resources (time, staffing >>> and money to attend other group meetings). Making the >>> connections to get invited and then having effective presentations >>> that speak to a particular community are essential. Follow-up >>> would also be very necessary. I think this is all quite consistent >>> with your Council Thoughts but certainly should be thought >>> through some more. >>> >>> --Craig >>> >>> At 02:58 PM 9/8/2005, Gregory Newby wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:02:49PM -0500, Geoffrey Fox wrote: >>>> > I sent the enclosed notes on a possible organization of community >>>> council >>>> > But I got no response. I wonder if that meant >>>> > a) Things are chugging along and organization is not important >>>> > b) You were so amazed by brilliance of plan that you can't put >>>> words to >>>> > email >>>> > c) The plan seemed same as before >>>> > d) You were so amazed by stupidity of plan that you can't put >>>> words to email >>>> > e) You are too busy right now >>>> > f) ggf emails are on your SPAM filter list >>>> > >>>> > ----------------------------------- >>>> > I welcome comments on these thoughts and suggested reorganization >>>> whose >>>> > main ideas are: >>>> > A Community Plan designed to support communities rather than just >>>> > exploiting GGF events >>>> > Splitting of council roles into an advisory board and area >>>> directors as >>>> > expediters >>>> >>>> I think your ideas are right-on, Geoffrey. Highlights for me: >>>> >>>> - success @ GGF14 >>>> - need more & smaller events >>>> - lack of GGF credibility/presence at some ongoing projects >>>> is a problem >>>> - high overhead for GFSG participation for likely community >>>> leaders is a problem >>>> >>>> >From my point of view, I'd say that the Community Council is >>>> already empowered to take most (nearly all) of the steps >>>> you mentioned. Some sort of 18-month calendar of possible >>>> activities, and expected changes in the status quo, would >>>> be good to present to the GFSG, perhaps at the upcoming f2f >>>> at GGF15. >>>> >>>> One thing that is not so clear to me: how has recruiting >>>> gone for bringing in more people with ideas for community >>>> events, making community ties, and the like? It seems the >>>> NOMCOM made some progress, but your PPT points out that there >>>> needs to be a lot of activity that won't originate in >>>> the GFSG (or community advisory council). >>>> -- Greg >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> : >> : Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org >> : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 > > > -- : : Geoffrey Fox gcf at indiana.edu FAX 8128567972 http://www.infomall.org : Phones Cell 812-219-4643 Home 8123239196 Lab 8128567977 From wulf at ggf.org Fri Sep 16 12:12:58 2005 From: wulf at ggf.org (Julie Wulf-Knoerzer) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:12:58 -0500 Subject: [CCGT] Tuesday call cancelled Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20050916121001.01b14700@localhost> Hi all, Just a quick note to let you know that there will be no Community Council call on Tuesday. Have a good weekend and hope to see you at GridWorld/GGF15. Julie +++++++++++++++++++ Julie Wulf-Knoerzer Manager of Community Development Global Grid Forum wulf at ggf.org ph. 630/252-7163 fax 630/252-4466