[snostorm]

This might be a bit verbose as is, although I think the examples help clarify the intent.

• Reference to WG acceptance of "evangelism" efforts https://github.com/iojs/website/blob/master/wg-meetings/2015-01-19.md#matching-or-diverging-from-iojs-organizationally
• Social media and documentation were discussed/approved Feb 2 but the minutes from that meeting haven't been PR'd in yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBJaXUA0lSY

Of course, pending general TC approval of the scope we've said we can take on / help develop.

[mikeal]

+1

[snostorm]

Forgot a mention this is also potentially a sub-WG, but not sure now if we should pre-emptively say that for either (TMI?)

[mikeal]

sub-WG isn't really a thing. this is covered in WORKING_GROUPS but basically once something has a big enough community behind it we spin out a WG and when that work was already handled by a WG then that WG and the TC have to approve the charter, but the WG concept is essentially flat (although we expect a lot of cross-collaboration between groups as they find necessary).

[snostorm]

I just simplified the language for now by removing the thought of splitting it out later as the timeline for that is unknown

[Fishrock123]

@iojs/tc

[Fishrock123]

(.. does that link work?)

[bnoordhuis]

It should but it doesn't... Summoning the @iojs/tc.

LGTM although IMO 'empowering' is a terrible word, on par with 'thought leadership' and 'synergy'.

[Fishrock123]

Closing. Evangelism is it's own thing and we currently don't have the person-power to actually take on docs.