Perhaps if we do something like I mentioned in passing earlier it could act as a compromise.
Specifically, if we allowed projects to be formed very lightweight and completely devoid of a sponsoring community (note the use of "allow" rather than "require"), do their work, and when the scope of the project grows to such a point that it makes sense to collaborate to some degree with another project, or spin off a sub-project, have them evolve to a CG, the leaders of the project(s) being promoted to CC's of the community. ( project leads need not be CC's . I was a project lead for over a year without a core grant ) So two scenarios here. I) Project Foo is working on a widget. The widget is getting quite complex, so the task is split in to two tasks that don't really need to be tightly bound ( don't need to share a svn/hg repo ), baz and quux, which might still need a little bit of coordination and/or it still makes sense to think of them as one logical grouping ( they are still working on the same widget ). The developers of both baz and quux are promoted to project leaders. They come to the OGB asking for a community charter for the Foo community, with projects Baz and Quux as sponsored projects. The leaders of Baz and Quux are /implicitly/ the initial CC's of the Foo community. II) Project Foo is working on a widget, baz. Project Bar is working on another widget, quux. Baz and quux start to have architectural interaction, and need or want to have more formal interaction. The Baz and Quux leaders come to the OGB asking for a community charter for a new Foo community with Baz and Quux as sponsored projects. The leaders of Baz and Quux are the initial CC's, again, implicitly. If this were to come to pass, I still think communities could form projects when it makes sense to, but the initial formation of a community ought to be formed out of projects. I imagine this would also have the effect of codifying the "those who do the work get their opinions heard" notion, in that those who have done work in projects end up getting promoted to CC's post facto via the evolution in to CG's. thoughts? On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Shawn Walker <swalker at opensolaris.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:15 AM, John Sonnenschein > <johnsonnenschein at gmail.com> wrote: >> Simon, >> >> I still very much disagree with your notion that communities ought to >> be formed by existing CC's. There are plenty of us whose work does not >> fall under the blanket of another community group , who would then not >> be able to form their own CG's to organize it. Since the entire >> proposal seems built upon this notion, I'm going to have to give the >> entire thing my -1 . > > I will have to echo John's comments here. > > I would rather resolve this during the "vetting process" that occurs > during instantiation then attempt to restrict the creation of CGs. > > Part of the CG instantiation process, as I understand it, is receiving > approval for the proposed set of contributors. > > The OGB directly approves the proposed core/contributor grants. If a > member of the OGB or community felt that the grants proposed had not > been adequately justified, then the proposal should not be accepted. > > Cheers, > -- > Shawn Walker > > "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - > Robert Orben > -- PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1 Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
