Conversation
| ## Project management | ||
|
|
||
| Each SIG project MUST define the rationale, methodology, and public observability for | ||
| The SIG MUST define the rationale, methodology, and public observability for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would stick with "each sig project", as it is better decentralized chain of responsibility in likely the event that projects under the same sig are run by different people and have different priorities and release dates
|
|
||
| ## Leadership roles | ||
|
|
||
| ### Execution Lead |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a few questions
- Can you explain the purpose of creating a distinction here between technical lead and execution lead?
- Is this similar to the "chair" role?
- Why would the technical lead not set the priorities of the working group?
- Why are there not roles defined in the sig-governance guidelines?
My thought is that possibly there could be an execution lead or liaison between the sigs, but that the sig technical leads should maintain their roles as technical leads for this project. That also has the effect of eliminating confusion over technical leadership in a group that is explicitly stated to be a collaboration between other groups that already have technical leads
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's the equivalent of separating out a product owner from a technical lead. The distinction is that the person responsible for the execution of the project may not necessarily be involved on a technical level. It's possible that these are both the same person, but generally should not be.
There are roles defined in sig-governance. See https://github.com/icon-project/community/blob/594c06d3d22adce71d2b3c6d7e5f1864b67fdfc6/guidelines/governance/sig-governance-guidelines.md#leadership-roles
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say that typically a special interest group is responsible for a project, and only in certain cases is a working group is responsible for a project. By your logic, should there not be an equivalent role in the special interest group?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And why should the technical lead generally not be the same as the person responsible for the execution of the project? They are both popular ways to run a project.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct. The "Chair" role in a SIG would be the equivalent, but it is more broad and strategic. These roles can be honed more as this structure gets adopted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I recommend to remove the technical lead role from the working groups. Execution lead can coordinate with technical leads and chairs for the collaborating sigs
|
|
||
| WGs MUST disband if | ||
| - scope is completed | ||
| - there has been no communication activity for 1 month in the defined communications channels |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be longer than 1 month. I would support either of the following:
- 3 months, because there is not really a bad effect of keeping the group open, other than clutter. and i think patience is appropriate here
- raise the question after 2 months (e.g. 'anyone here?')
2 participants
this provides an initial set of guidelines to special interest groups and working groups.