PS I promised Peter a prettier version of the logic model. :)

+1

I'm concerned the IoT team essentially is just Peter listed on the objective. Do we have other individuals or groups we can add that will be working on this?

I'm concerned the IoT team essentially is just Peter listed on the objective. Do we have other individuals or groups we can add that will be working on this?

It does say Objective Lead ;-) but there are others such as @pwhalen and other's that will be more engaged once we have something (a compose etc) where they can contribute to. Some of this was covered in the council presentation which if you happened to have missed it can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA6JNeCt8Aw

I'm concerned the IoT team essentially is just Peter listed on the objective. Do we have other individuals or groups we can add that will be working on this?

It does say Objective Lead ;-) but there are others such as @pwhalen and other's that will be more engaged once we have something (a compose etc) where they can contribute to. Some of this was covered in the council presentation which if you happened to have missed it can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA6JNeCt8Aw

I wasn't talking about the Objective Lead line. That should definitely be a single person from a contact and communication standpoint. I was referring to the "IoT Team (aka Peter)" line in the logic model. It would sure make me sleep better if the "(aka Peter)" part was dropped and there was a link to an actual team :) Objectives tend to be too large for a single person.

At any rate, it's good we have others that will eventually be able to help.

The not quite objective model was Matt and I brainstorming, Matt was suppose to have done a proper one, with all pretty flows connecting points and others such wonders, without typos and in-jokes about teams ;-) It's fake news :-P

Josh raises a good point, though. Peter, we missed talking about this but not on purpose just throuhg oversight. We should have an IoT Working Group associated with this, and creating that should be one of the outputs here, and having that functional and a self-sustaining community around that should be one of the outcomes. Does that sound reasonable @pbrobinson ? I'll add it to the logic model and wiki if it does to you.

Added updated logic model to wiki page

svg source

This doesn't have arrows, but I think the left←→right flow is pretty good

I am +1 to this. :)

Josh raises a good point, though. Peter, we missed talking about this but not on purpose just throuhg oversight. We should have an IoT Working Group associated with this, and creating that should be one of the outputs here, and having that functional and a self-sustaining community around that should be one of the outcomes. Does that sound reasonable @pbrobinson ? I'll add it to the logic model and wiki if it does to you.

I had assumed there would be a working group or a SIG that would oversea all this, maybe is was a bad assumption to not actually highlight my assumption there :-) so yes, sounds perfectly reasonable.

Okay, so, I'm +1. and Josh is +1 assuming the WG caveat is resolved. Other council members? Any other community commentary?

Assuming we form a WG and they get engaged I am +1

+1 with same comment as @ausil.

+1 per @ausil

+1

Okay, this is approved. I'll set Peter up as a council member when I get back from Italy.