[CCGT] Checking the pulse of the Community Council

[Craig Lee]

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