Bonnie and Alan wrote: > Why? We have ~50 Community Groups, many of which predate the adoption of the constitution, many of which are not in alignment with the constitution's definitions of Community Group.
We have several hundred Projects, many of which also predate the constitution, few of which are actually being managed by an initiating Community Group. Many don't even have a relationship with a CG, others have notational relationships with several, but are being managed by none. We have 67 User Groups that don't fit (well) into the current Community Group/Project structure. We have been asked (repeatedly) by the membership to clean up and simplify this hodge podge into something that is easier to understand and that aligns with the way we do things today. Alan Burlison wrote: > Yes. Directly control? No. > Interdependence and control are not the same thing. We are not rewriting the OpenSolaris constitution from the ground up. The current community structure defines Community Groups and Projects. All your "ownership" and "control" hot buttons are already there in today's OS.o structure - we are not adding anything new: > Constitution 7.1: > ...the OpenSolaris Community is held to be composed of Community > Groups that are initiated by the OGB for the purpose of focused > management and accomplishment of a given set of activities. > Community Groups are, in turn, responsible for initiating and > managing projects to accomplish those activities. This part of the "reorg" is making the consolidations that comprise the OpenSolaris product be Community Groups and shuffling the various Projects into alignment with the consolidations that they integrate into. We are dealing with the other things (SIGs, stand alone Projects, ...) that don't fit this model individually, as it is obvious that not everything fits (or should fit) into the consolidation model. -John
