James Carlson wrote: >> None of that means that Consolidations have to 'own' the projects that >> deliver to them. Cooperate with? Yes. Establish integration criteria? >> Yes. Directly control? No. > > Completely agree. It's not a simple hierarchical relationship.
Great :-) >>> That may be harder to see in a patchwork like SFW, but it's quite >>> obvious in ON and even in GNOME. There are parts that depend on each >>> other, and that can't just live completely independently. >> Interdependence and control are not the same thing. > > Yep. I agree that they shouldn't be nested. It's even conceivable > that a project may deliver through more than one consolidation. Absolutely. > The part I was disagreeing with was the statement that consolidations > are "only" projects, as far as governance is concerned. I think > that's inaccurate. I can see there are good arguments for explicitly recognising the uniqueness of what a consolidation does, and it's easy enough to model. Heck, we could even define a 'delivers to' relationship between Projects & Consolidations, and if Projects deliver to multiple places, fine - we can capture that too. -- Alan Burlison --
