I've just read it closely and it looks really good. Especially like the
short, terse sentences.
The only thing that comes to mind is: should we be specifying the types of
things that the CWG cannot / should not handle? (e.g. types of situations
that belong in the general meeting.) Or is that going to be the job of the
CWG when it's assembled?
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lowenthal notifications@github.comwrote:
> In noisebridge/bureaucracy#22https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/pull/22,
> I proposed a charter for a Noisebridge CWG. I think we should adopt it.
>
> ##
>
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/noisebridge/cabal/issues/10
> .
##
Naomi Theora Most
naomi@nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490
skype: nthmost
http://twitter.com/nthmost
I hope the CWG will decide that. I was actively trying to make this very meta, so that the CWG effectively respond and adapt to changing circumstances.
I like it as well. I have a question/concern about the wording about editing and maintaining because it's so vague, but I think that the rest of the charter does a good job explaining things.
@tensory and @asweigart, thoughts on this? We are eager to get this started.
Just noting that after a discussion on #community-wg on https://slack.noisebridge.com, we (Tom and I) realized we had very different concepts of what the Community Working Group actually is.
Tom then named his group Safe Space Working Group (#safe-space-wg), which more closely defines what he's going for.
Noted, thanks for the clarification @nthmost . Should we close this topic then?
Sure.
If we s/community/safe-space on this doc, does it look right, or is there more fundamental disagreement?
@flamsmark I think it's fine. It's a skeleton. The meat of the group -- its effectiveness and longevity -- depends on what you Do.
In noisebridge/bureaucracy#22, I proposed a charter for a Noisebridge CWG. I think we should adopt it.