Social Economy Community Group proposal announced (former: to recycle old and inactive CG (Community I/O) or to propose new one (Collaborative Economy)?)

We went ahead and proposed new group: Social Economy

https://www.w3.org/community/blog/2015/09/11/proposed-group-social-economy-community-group/

Big thanks to everyone for constructive feedback!

On 08/20/2015 07:20 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 20, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/20/2015 12:30 PM, Bassetti, Ann wrote:
>>> Sounds very interesting, elf. Lynn Foster also explained some of this to me awhile ago -- fascinating explorations!
>>>
>>> I suggest using a name that is most recognizable by the community you want to attract. And also for communicating the concept(s) publicly.  For me, with no background, "economy" sounds more explicit than I/O for what I understand you are trying to get at. I/O to me implies computer system level actions.
>>>
>>> Sandro, Harry, Wendy -- from a W3C point-of-view, would elf start a new group or can he re-name his old group?
>>
>> I believe the answer is 'start a new group' would be far by easiest. I
>> do not know if we can re-label old groups, and I doubt we can without
>> systeam work that is unlikely to happen. Elf can ask System Team
>> directly by emailing sysreq@w3.org.
> 
> Some notes:
> 
>  * It is easy from an operational perspective to repurpose a CG (provided the shortname does not require changing).
>    The place to send the request would be team-community-process@w3.org.
> 
>  * Whether one should repurpose a CG is another story, and I think there are many considerations such as how
>    active and old the community has been, whether the mailing list includes lots of people who signed up for one
>    topic and are now receiving email about another, whether the group has published Reports, etc.
> 
>  * If the group has published Reports (which this group has not), it might be more challenging (but not impossible) to
>    identify who contributed to the old reports and who contributed to new reports after the “charter change.”
> 
>  * We don’t have a lot of experience in doing this, but it seems to me that if the CG is repurposed in a way that
>    is a refinement of its original purpose, and if there is consensus among the participants to make the change, it
>    should be fine to repurpose the group. This spares people the need to join another group. (Which is not super costly
>    but doing nothing is less costly.)
> 
> In practice, repurposing a group would be done like this:
> 
>  * The CG Chair(s) should propose a new description to the CG (on their list) and entertain feedback. If there’s support,
>    then make the change. Otherwise, do nothing or shut down the group.
> 
>  * Once there is consensus to make the change, the Chair sends a new description for the group to team-community-process@w3.org.
>    The staff who manage CGs will update the  description that appears on the home page.
> 
>  * The CG Chair(s) would then update things like the group’s wiki or charter, marking things as historical, etc.
> 
>  * The CG Chair would ideally then blog about the change to the group, and that blog post would also appear automatically on the
>    main CG page, serving as a notice to the broader community about the change.
> 
> Ian
> 
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 
>