[Members] Formalizing Informal Liaisons

Joachim Lindborg joachim.lindborg at sust.se
Wed Nov 27 12:31:28 UTC 2013

That sounds ok for me. The liaison teams then report to board and
discussions are to be backfed to the XSF list when needed.

Will that imply that people leaving or joining the teams, must be validated
through the board or just taken in the teams, again adding bureaucracy

Joachim Lindborg
CTO, systems architect

*Keynote speaker at GoGonet live IPv6 conferens 12-14 november
<http://gogonetlive.com/gogonetlive-speakers.asp> *

Sustainable Innovation AB
Adress: Box 55998 102 16 Stockholm
Besöksadress: Storgatan 31 (Malmgården)
Email: Joachim.lindborg at sust.se, www.sust.se
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/joachimlindborg
Tel +46 706-442270

2013/11/27 Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>

> Folks,
> One more thing to think about, while I'm creating work the the Board. :-)
> You may have noticed that the Board formalized a procedure for Liaisons -
> formal relationships with other Standards Organizations - in the last
> meeting. The essential procedure is that the XMPP Council nominates a small
> number (1-3) of XSF Members who'll form a Work Team, and the Board will
> ratify (or not) that nomination.
> I was wondering, though, about informal Liaisons - for example, Simon's
> touched base with the Mozilla guys, and we were chatting about arkOS in the
> XSF chatroom the other day.
> How do people feel about officially reaching out to these kinds of groups
> and projects in roughly the same manner as we do for SDOs?
> So we'd identify, for example, that Mozilla could potentially use XMPP,
> and we'd get a small team together who could approach Mozilla and offer
> them help - with the full backing and support of the XSF. I'm particularly
> wondering if this would lend some weight, particularly to the initial
> contact, and also provide some solid backup and support for people doing
> the technical evaluation.
> I'd be rather happier if the liaison teams for these kinds of things were
> at least mostly self-selecting, in which case the general thing would be a
> couple of members approaching the Council, the Council finding an extra
> body to help if needed and passing it onto the Board to stamp. I appreciate
> that'll introduce a level of bureaucracy that's not ideal, but that should,
> hopefully, be the limit of it.
> Dave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20131127/44d5c3fa/attachment.html>

More information about the Members mailing list