Simon Phipps wrote: > Hey, I'm not here to argue with you, as I am clueless on the details - I > am just feeding back what I thought I heard. I clearly am not as > familiar with the way Sun's Solaris team works as you. I'd rather you > told me what would work please, within the parameters I'm proposing (of > a manageable top-level for governance purposes). Or are you asserting > that is impossible?
Well, nothing is impossible... :-) I'm not clear what problems a hierarchy is intended to fix. To me at least it doesn't appear that the OGB is currently overwhelmed with requests from the groups we have at the moment, although I'll be happy to be corrected. Apart form the mismatch with the current culture, I can see a few other issues with a hierarchical structure - currently we have 51 communities and 269 projects. Any top-level organisation would not be able to directly represent each of those groups, so it seems to me that we'd need multiple levels. And in that case it appears that we'd actually be disenfranchising people - at the moment all the groups in the community are peers, imposing a hierarchy would inevitably change that. And the other thing of course that trying to impose such a hierarchy would be very time consuming and almost certainly politically divisive as well. We seem to be managing fairly well with our current structure, and I thought the original intention of this process was to clean up the discrepancies rather than undertake a root and branch restructuring. The proposal JimG posted a few days ago is an evolution from what we have now, and I think that is the quickest and easiest path forwards. -- Alan Burlison --
