let working groups manage their own pages and show their activity.

[benoitc]

I am reading at #239, #238, #237 or #240 and I am asking myself why we should have dedicated section which should be feeded by one oor another member of the Education or Embedded working groups and maybe others. Why not working on a way to allow each working groups to have their own sub website instead.

It would be easy for the WG to advertise the platform they work or are aware of. Same ofr the education to get the connectiosn to update the links.

Afaik, working groups are the value of the foundation, maybe we should make it more visivle on the website and actually ensure they are sections of the website people are used to visite. Thoughts?

[starbelly]

The community section to me does not belong to a working group it belongs to the foundation and community at large.

As to, sub domains and static sites for working groups, I think we may be moving towards that, but I think that's a separate issue, but it's not clear yet, not to me anyway.

[ferd]

as a WG co-chair, I don't have time to set up a full website for my WG when each project of the WG already has websites. Whatever the solution is, I'd hope to be able to focus on the WG work rather than what it'd look like on the foundation site.

[benoitc]

related to it there is the discussion about the blog platform erlef/infra-wg#42. We already discussed about but maybe each WG should be able to communicate on their own section.

[benoitc]

as a WG co-chair, I don't have time to set up a full website for my WG when each project of the WG already has websites. Whatever the solution is, I'd hope to be able to focus on the WG work rather than what it'd look like on the foundation site.

I agree, and we should have default websites. I am expecting however that a WG communicate a minimum about its work. The intent here is to make it easy for the wg to do it. What I am suggesting, is to have that WG as a first entry in the website and have their projects directly visible /linked/presented on their sections.

[benoitc]

As to, sub domains and static sites for working groups, I think we may be moving towards that, but I think that's a separate issue, but it's not clear yet, not to me anyway.

the issue has been opened sometimes ago : infra-wg/issues#24 . I do think we can make some kind of page that represent the activity of a group without giving to the chair too much work to do it. That will provide more visibiity to outside. @ferd what about a simple way to post a news/events and add resources links?

[ferd]

Possibly, though aside from meetings there aren't a ton of events for us to post at this point, but that might be different from say, the education WG.

[benoitc]

@ferd yes , i don't think it should be obligatory to fill everything as well. For me it's more about building a complete profile/status page by WG which could display the following infos:

• Next meeting
• how to contact (already there but not editable) / discuss
• Links to external resources editable
• Possibility to add a news linked there and on the blog
• Last update/report from the group

I would love to see above, this would be quite more attractive for someone external to the foundation.

[starbelly]

Yeah, so what you said above is the direction the working group pages are moving. For example, @benoitc if you login to the site you should see a manage link if you go to the infra group. This currently allows you to adjust a few meta attributes, edit the charter, make contributors chairs (or remove them as chairs), etc. More needs to be done, but yeah. The next thing that will be coming out is the ability to add contributors .

@benoitc Can you go through the manage interface for infra and then open an issue for each thing that you think should be there but currently isn't?

[benoitc]

I will check. But these features should really be documented and communicated openly somewhere so everyone know about them . Before creating tickets. I would like to grasp a general feeling about it. This is the intent of this ticket. Of course we can split it in different tasks later.

On Tue 16 Mar 2021 at 01:29, Bryan Paxton ***@***.***> wrote: Yeah, so what you said above is the direction the working group pages are moving. For example, @benoitc <https://github.com/benoitc> if you login to the site you should see a manage link if you go to the infra group. This currently allows you to adjust a few meta attributes, edit the charter, make contributors chairs (or remove them as chairs), etc. More needs to be done, but yeah. The next thing that will be coming out is the ability to add contributors . @benoitc <https://github.com/benoitc> Can you go through the manage interface for infra and then open an issue for each thing that you think should be there but currently isn't? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#279 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAADRIS7CJD4DPKESAUFVKTTD2Q63ANCNFSM4ZHCI43A> .

-- Sent from my Mobile

[starbelly]

I will check. But these features should really be documented and
communicated openly somewhere so everyone know about them .

I don't disagree with that.

[starbelly]

Closing this as resolved.