In addition to the initial test-case at wikitech:Wiki Replicas Special Interest Group, these other groups have been proposed recently:
Kevin mentioned a "Technology Sunsetting working group".
And for completeness, don't forget to mention the front end standardization group, even if it's already mentioned as an example in the prose.
Kevin mentioned a "Technology Sunsetting working group".
They have a wiki page: Sunsetting Working Group
One of the best organized and long tenured groups I can think of is Scrum of scrums. I don't know that they have any interest in the branding or subtle changes it may take to be a "SIG" but it's regular, with public minutes, and a well defined charter and meeting framework.
Whether a group is a SIG or not is up to the group I think. In time we'll know if the standard has legs because everyone will find it useful.
I don't view SoS as a SIG, because a) attendees rotate, and b) they are pretty much told to go, as opposed to attending out of professional interest.
For me, the Team Practices Guild and Product Manager Salon could fall into the SIG category.
My views are still forming on all of this. I have my own preconceptions about what a SIG might be, which are different from others (and from this proposal). I do think the main focus should be: Are there groups for whom these guidelines are helpful? Are there tweaks (over time) that would make them more helpful, or to more teams?
Makes sense @KSmith (WMF), I'm glad you are engaged in this conversation. Your point of view is useful.
