James Carlson wrote: > I think you've got this just about exactly right. One of the > implications of this (and I think it's probably a good one, as it > could lead to an end to the discussion ;-}) is that consolidationhood > is just an attribute of a project: a project is a consolidation if > it's been designated as one by a distributor (aka "WOS"). > > The relationship is that distributors select consolidations (of > arbitrary size; a "consolidation" that delivers a single file is > fine), and consolidations in turn impose the distributor's local rules > (whatever those may be; such as packaging or i18n standards) onto any > projects that seek integration.
As far as the membership database goes, having Consolidations as a distinct type of collective is a trivial thing to set up. If there's a choice to be made, perhaps we should just choose whatever fits best into people's heads :-) -- Alan Burlison --
