On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison at sun.com> wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> Projects don't necessarily have to be associated with a consolidation, >> especially ones in the experiment and refine stages, that aren't ready >> to deliver. They don't have to have a governance/hierarchical relationship >> with an existing consolidation - but to get set up, they have to convince >> someone they should be created - that could be a SIG, another Project, or >> the OGB, though we'd prefer most projects not come to the OGB, and would >> try to refer most to a more appropriate group to get started under. > > One option is to do the equivalent of ARC fast tracks for project > establishment - have a mailing list that people post a description of > their proposed project to, and if nobody objects within 1/2 weeks, the > proposed project is automatically approved. > > If there are no constitutional consequences of project creation (e.g. no > voting implications), we can make the project initiation process more > lightweight.
This is what I've been pushing all along. Only I would go further with projects, and say that all you need is somebody (or enough people) to support you - naysayers don't count, so that people can't be prevented from working on things they're interested in. (There's nothing wrong with someone pointing out overlaps or conflicts, but it should be taken as advice.) > The same principles could also in be applied to the creation of > Communities and User Groups if they too also had no constitutional > impact, although that would need a bit more thought and discussion. Which is exactly why I want the constitutional responsibilities taken away. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
