[CCGT] Checking the pulse of the Community Council

[Craig Lee]

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