Hi Steve!

Here is the slide visualizing the OpenChain Working Groups, ready for remix into new verticals proof of concept.

Everyone, this file welcomes your edits too :)

Regards

Shane

> On Oct 20, 2022, at 9:30, Steve Kilbane <stephen.kilbane@...> wrote:

>> Shane:

>> Does anyone want to take a shot at this visualization?

>  …..maybe. Where does the slide live? (I had a poke around the various repos, but didn’t spot anything semi-obvious).

>  Steve

> 

>> Steve:

>>> You didn’t mention the Telco or Automotive WGs. While there might not be any changes there, perhaps the diagram might separate out the industry-specific WGs into a Verticals column, as they’re distinct from the geographical WGs and the topical WGs? That would also allow for emphasis that there’s scope for more WGs in both verticals and geography as need or desire arises?

>> Shane:

>> Absolutely. I just ran out of space in the slide.

>> Does anyone want to take a shot at this visualization?

Hi Steve!

Here is the slide visualizing the OpenChain Working Groups, ready for remix into new verticals proof of concept.

Everyone, this file welcomes your edits too :)

Regards

Shane

> On Oct 20, 2022, at 9:30, Steve Kilbane <stephen.kilbane@...> wrote:

>> Shane:

>> Does anyone want to take a shot at this visualization?

>  …..maybe. Where does the slide live? (I had a poke around the various repos, but didn’t spot anything semi-obvious).

>  Steve

> 

>> Steve:

>>> You didn’t mention the Telco or Automotive WGs. While there might not be any changes there, perhaps the diagram might separate out the industry-specific WGs into a Verticals column, as they’re distinct from the geographical WGs and the topical WGs? That would also allow for emphasis that there’s scope for more WGs in both verticals and geography as need or desire arises?

>> Shane:

>> Absolutely. I just ran out of space in the slide.

>> Does anyone want to take a shot at this visualization?

A few more ideas on different arrangements.

steve

Hi Shane,

I think it will be good if we put the box into different category, See slide 2 of the attachment, (My personal opinion)   

#I donot know which box the policy wg belong to. If it is oss policy, then shall move to openchain areas, if it is government policy, then maybe move to the top box.

Open Chain areas work group

• Education
• Licensing
• Security
• Export Control
• Open Chain

Open Chain geographical work group

• China
• Japan
• Korea
• ...

Open Chain industry work group

• Telcom
• Automotive
• Policy/Goverment

BR

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: education@... <education@...> On Behalf Of Shane Coughlan via lists.openchainproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:01 PM
To: OpenChain Main <main@...>
Cc: OpenChain Education <education@...>
Subject: Re: [education] [telco] [openchain-automotive-work-group] [oss-based-compliance-tooling] OpenChain Work Groups – New and Improved Structure

Hi Steve!

Here is the slide visualizing the OpenChain Working Groups, ready for remix into new verticals proof of concept.

Everyone, this file welcomes your edits too :)

Regards

Shane

> On Oct 20, 2022, at 9:30, Steve Kilbane <stephen.kilbane@...> wrote:

>> Shane:

>> Does anyone want to take a shot at this visualization?

>  …..maybe. Where does the slide live? (I had a poke around the various repos, but didn’t spot anything semi-obvious).

>  Steve

> 

>> Steve:

>>> You didn’t mention the Telco or Automotive WGs. While there might not be any changes there, perhaps the diagram might separate out the industry-specific WGs into a Verticals column, as they’re distinct from the geographical WGs and the topical WGs? That would also allow for emphasis that there’s scope for more WGs in both verticals and geography as need or desire arises?

>> Shane:

>> Absolutely. I just ran out of space in the slide.

>> Does anyone want to take a shot at this visualization?

A few more ideas on different arrangements.

steve

Hi Shane,

I think it will be good if we put the box into different category, See slide 2 of the attachment, (My personal opinion)   

#I donot know which box the policy wg belong to. If it is oss policy, then shall move to openchain areas, if it is government policy, then maybe move to the top box.

Open Chain areas work group

• Education
• Licensing
• Security
• Export Control
• Open Chain

Open Chain geographical work group

• China
• Japan
• Korea
• ...

Open Chain industry work group

• Telcom
• Automotive
• Policy/Goverment

BR

Mary

-----Original Message-----
From: education@... <education@...> On Behalf Of Shane Coughlan via lists.openchainproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2022 4:01 PM
To: OpenChain Main <main@...>
Cc: OpenChain Education <education@...>
Subject: Re: [education] [telco] [openchain-automotive-work-group] [oss-based-compliance-tooling] OpenChain Work Groups – New and Improved Structure

Hi Steve!

Here is the slide visualizing the OpenChain Working Groups, ready for remix into new verticals proof of concept.

Everyone, this file welcomes your edits too :)

Regards

Shane

> On Oct 20, 2022, at 9:30, Steve Kilbane <stephen.kilbane@...> wrote:

>> Shane:

>> Does anyone want to take a shot at this visualization?

>  …..maybe. Where does the slide live? (I had a poke around the various repos, but didn’t spot anything semi-obvious).

>  Steve

> 

>> Steve:

>>> You didn’t mention the Telco or Automotive WGs. While there might not be any changes there, perhaps the diagram might separate out the industry-specific WGs into a Verticals column, as they’re distinct from the geographical WGs and the topical WGs? That would also allow for emphasis that there’s scope for more WGs in both verticals and geography as need or desire arises?

>> Shane:

>> Absolutely. I just ran out of space in the slide.

>> Does anyone want to take a shot at this visualization?

 

That makes sense. Im sensitive to to many arrows and flows as there naturally will be a flow from the Local UGs back into both the WGs and the SIG. The UG is not an endpoint as I see them, but another for a to discuss and feedback into the other groups.

 

Your suggestion is good, but we should be careful as to not be so detailed that we do not see the forest for all the trees that stand in the way. 😊

 

BR J

 

From: main@... <main@...> On Behalf Of Jacob Wilson via lists.openchainproject.org
Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2022 15:59
To: main@...
Cc: OpenChain Education <education@...>
Subject: Re: [openchain] [education] [telco] [openchain-automotive-work-group] [oss-based-compliance-tooling] OpenChain Work Groups – New and Improved Structure

 

One thing that I believe is not as clear as previous material is the "Stream" of these facets. Perhaps the working group structure is not intended to define the interconnections, but I believe the arrows would all lead into the local user groups at the bottom, correct?

I think it would be helpful to define the flow with either arrow ends or shapes. Maybe align to the mission statement of "increase trust in the open source supply chain"?

- Jacob

 

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:35 AM Steve Kilbane <stephen.kilbane@...> wrote:

I think it looks great. 😊

 

From: main@... <main@...> on behalf of Shane Coughlan <scoughlan@...>
Date: Thursday, 27 October 2022 at 14:09
To: OpenChain Main <main@...>
Cc: OpenChain Education <education@...>
Subject: Re: [openchain] [education] [telco] [openchain-automotive-work-group] [oss-based-compliance-tooling] OpenChain Work Groups – New and Improved Structure

[External]

Steve, Mary and Jimmy… I think we made some real progress here. Thank you all for working on slide concepts.

As you iterated on each other, perhaps we are emerging at a great place to describe the project. Jimmy’s concept of splitting work groups, special interest groups and user groups seems to be the final missing part.

Adjusting the final summary slide, here is what we are looking at. What do you think?