[Web Comm] Web Committee Chair

[Jo Walsh]

dear Jason, Arnulf, all,

As I'm at least partly to blame for raising the question of squashing
WebCom and SAC into one entity, I'd like to respond to this.

On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 09:00:49AM -0700, Jason Birch wrote:
> - VisCom takes over determining the content and audience of the website

http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Promotion_and_Visibility_Committee
rather assumes this already. I am not sure that this is right. WebCom
should't have be uncreative; VisCom has its hands pretty full already. 
Mpg is coming up with a lot of web content suggestions, but no-one has
a remit or maybe the time to act them out.
 
> - SAC takes over publishin this content
> 
> If that's the case, then I would prefer to re-join VisCom, because just
> publishing other people's stuff without input into what should be
> produced and how it should be structured on the site is not much fun
> (for me).

Jason, despite the long list at
https://webcommittee.osgeo.org/servlets/ProjectMemberList , I think
you basically *are* WebCom at the moment. The attrition rate has been
incredible for the reasons you point out; the inflexibility of and
uncertainty about the future of the publishing platform; and the sense
that there's not a great deal of fun or psychic profit to be had in
being involved with it. (The volunteer newsletter editor position was
never filled for the same kind of reasons, right?) 
 
So this discussion partially originates in looking towards a new
publishing platform for next year, that would help make it easier and 
more fun for people to contribute, and give the participants in WebCom/SAC 
more of a stake in its design and implementation. I hope that we
take management of hosted services "in-house" next year, and plan to
fundraise to support whatever development and maintenance costs are
necessary. There is "across the Board" agreement that this is the
right thing to do. If there isn't one place in which decisions about
this are suggested, floated round the membership for feedback, and
recommended to the Board for funding+support, then I am concerned that
"Plan B" might slip through the cracks. I'd like to see a viable
replacement for the web site(s) running and testable by the end of
November. With all respect to SAC, I'm not sure that it alone is the
best place to have a definitive UI/member/user/needs conversation, nor
is VisCom the best place to make technical platform decisions.

I hope all this could bring a new lease of life to WebCom, and give
its participants a chance to rethink its remit; not kill it off
completely!

good luck,


jo