As mentioned in there, any member of our previous Technical Working groups is welcome to self-nominate; that group alone may provide more than enough prospective membership to get started. That said, I expect that I will also extend invitations to specific perspectives that we ought to have represented.
(Once formed, the Committee will be expected to manage its own membership moving forward.)
I expect this process to take about a mont. Over the next couple of weeks, please review and provide any reactions to the content in that document – and reach out if you’re interested in serving on the Committee!
Thanks in advance to all who step up to help with this process
Hi folks – thanks to all who’ve discussed this with me in one form or another over the past month. Seems like we have a sufficient set of nominated committee members who are ready to write this next chapter – @devin@skyleryoung@SarahP@klambacher@MikeThacker – all of whom served on our technical working group for 3.0. I think among them we have a solid cross-section of experience, perspectives, and at least three nationalities. (I do think the committee could eventually benefit from an additional two more members, and toward that end I will advocate for further diversification. But this seems like it could be a good starting point.)
Our next standing technical meetup is just under two weeks away (June 12th, 11a ET). So the community has that time to identify any other issues with the Technical Committee proposal and/or bring any other nominations or concerns to the table. If no other issues arise, we’ll plan to shift into a formalization process – drafting a charter, etc.
Thanks again to all who’ve helped carve this path – let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions!
I’m happy with Open Referral Blog Posts – Committee + HSDS 3.1 subject to one tiny issue on which I have commented. The content is pretty dry but needed to let people know we have good open processes.
The complete this survey link will need more prominence here and elsewhere if we want a good response.
In the interest of keeping our membership up, and given her already prolific work in this space, I would like to nominate @sasha to become a member of the Technical Committee. Can I get a second?
Great to see that we have two new nominations to the Committee.
(@skyleryoung I personally strongly agree that @sasha would make a great addition, though we don’t technically need to get a second since we don’t use Robert’s Rules; as per our charter a nomination can be simply decided on – and is approved as long as nobody strongly opposes.)
This does mean that the next Committee meeting should be private (or at least part of it should be private) so that members can discuss candidly. I can exclude myself from it too.
We need to reschedule the August meeting tho because Kate can’t make this next one. I’ll followup on that in another thread.
