Questions regarding formation of technology related groups

Jump to: navigation, search

I have a few suggestions/questions regarding the following criteria from the "Formal constitution..." section:

"In the case of a Workgroup that will result in technological dependencies or technology security issues, two thirds of the members of the WikiEducator Technical Group including at least one of our Server Administrators MUST be signed up as participants of the workgroup. Technology workgroup members have the right to table a minority position for consideration by Council in the event where consensus cannot be achieved."

  1. I suggest adding a link to the main page of the WE Technical Group. I would have done this, but I couldn't find it, only the WE Technical Google group.
  2. I suggest adding a link to the page listing the Server Administrators.
  3. I wonder if instead of the two-thirds criteria, "two-thirds of the members of the WE Technical Group...must be signed as participants....", it would be better to make the criteria a minimum number. If the WE Technical Group were to grow in size, two-thirds could become unwieldy and burdensome, which could bog down the process. To keep the group as a mix of technical and non-technical, we'd need to add a minimum number for non Tech group members. OR, maybe we want to say that two-thirds of the Community Workgroup must be members of the WE Technical Group, including at least one Server Administrator. Actually I'm still in favor of making this a minimum number, in either case.
ASnieckus (talk)13:32, 15 August 2009

Hi Alison,

Sorry I missed this post.

You're right the WikiEd Tech group should develop a page on the wiki :-).

They're typically too busy looking after the health and safety of our servers. In the mean time you can link to the WE tech group:

Will get this onto the to-do list.

I'm inclined to agree with your point about 2/3 thirds of the WE Technical Group. While currently small at the moment, it could grow. So I propose that we go with a minimum of three with at least one Server Admin required.

I'll post an invite to the Tech group to take a look at the proposal as well.


Mackiwg (talk)12:52, 26 August 2009

Perhaps just a couple of tech group members would be useful in a workgroup to provide advice (and suggest alternative solutions?). If the output of a workgroup requires a change in the server configuration it will presumably require consensus among (all) the tech folk... and if necessary those that weren't active participants can review the discussions of the workgroup.

JimTittsler (talk)00:51, 27 August 2009

Hi Jim,

That's a good point about consensus among all members of the tech group --- so we need to add a step in the process that, prior to implementation of any technical changes ---a consensus approval from all the tech folk is required.

Mackiwg (talk)08:30, 27 August 2009