Tim Bunce wrote: > > > I'd go for this, especially if the lists had an automatic self-destruct > > mechanism. ("This list will self destruct in 10 days. Beep!") They'd give a > > sandbox to contain discussion on a particular topic for a while but keep > > things from going on interminably. > > I agree in general. > > I suggest that sub-groups be setup in exactly the same manner as the > parent working group. > > We're pretty much agreed that each working group has a chairperson, > mailing list, charter/goals, lifespan (and whatever else) which are > agreed in advance by the Perl6 project manager. > > These sub-groups can be defined recursively as mini working groups. > They'd have a chairperson, mailing list, charter/goals, lifespan > (and whatever else) which are agreed in advance with the chairperson of > the parent working group. > > Seems kinda neat. > This idea has a lot of merit. I would like to add that, as the lifespan of a (sub-)group comes to an end, all discussions need to archived, in an easily locatable place, and a summery prepared. That way we can keep the linkages up and down through the groups connected, even after the group disbands. -- Mark Pease Mark.Pease@motorola.com Motorola DigitalDNA(tm) Laboratories email@example.com 2200 W. Broadway Rd. Phone:(480)655-6950 Mail Stop: AZ09 M350 Mesa, AZ 85202 Pager:(800)381-3304 FAX:(480)655-6192 Co-Author (with Carl Dichter) of "Software Engineering with Perl"