Alan Burlison writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > > I don't think it's anywhere near that simple. Consolidations (as I > > noted in an earlier posting on this topic) also define architectural > > boundaries for software and constrain the way software may work. They > > thus have a special position in the universe: many projects simply > > cannot exist without reference to the consolidation through which they > > deliver. > > 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. > > 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. 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. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
