RFC: Working Group Model

You’ll see a a few new #working-group categories popping on the site, mostly as #ecosystem categories for now.

This is a thread to document & discuss how this should work, and to start creating a pattern that people can follow.

I’ll present the #ecosystem:caa-wg as an example – the Content Addressed Alliance Working Group.

Here’s the about page:

What I’ve noted there, is that working groups have a companion Discourse group. This gives groups a private PM channel to message everyone, plus various other features and functions by having a group.

In the case of the CAA, I’ve chosen to set permissions so that everyone can read the category, but I ask that people join the CAA group if they intend to contribute / post / comment.

This is all configurable. So for instance, maybe I’ll change it so that everyone can comment, but if you want to post, you need to join the group. Or, for sensitive discussions, maybe private, group only postings are appropriate. There is no one answer here, this is a function of settings on a per group, per category level, Discourse gives us a lot of default options.

So, what do you think about the Working Groups model? What are your questions? Concerns? Excitement?

( in this context, RFC == Request for Community :stuck_out_tongue: )


I like Working Groups as model, mostly because it’s a pretty well-known standard. “BoF” is another similar term, maybe less recently popular.

On this forum, we could potentially rename the Ecosystems category to Working Groups.

We might want a tiered system, to differentiate between WGs that require nomination and/or approvals to create and/or join (such as specs maintainers or community wg), and WGs that anyone can (and should!) spin up to coalesce a subcommunity.

1 Like