Simon Phipps wrote: > John Plocher argues that consolidations are fed by their constituent > projects. Jim suggests that user groups can be a aggregated under a > top-level group. There thus seems to me to be an inherent hierarchy that > just needs recognising and possibly adding to a little (e.g. a SIGs > grouping). What am I missing?
ON doesn't own the projects that integrate into it, no matter what John thinks. And what Jim is suggesting is that we recognise the UGs by explicitly categorising them as a distinct type of collective. That's not the same as imposing a hierarchy. What I haven't seen is any detailed explanation of what problem you are trying to solve by imposing a hierarchy. We don't have a hierarchy at the moment and that doesn't seem, to me at least, to be a problem. I'm also a little puzzled as to why the bulk of the OGB seem to be very quiet in this discussion, at least on-list - I would have expected that governance was a core concern of all of the OGB members. -- Alan Burlison --
