John Plocher wrote: > 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.
Sticking them in a hierarchy won't fix that. > 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. As I said in an earlier mail, and as has been implied by much of the earlier conversation, the 'sponsors' relationship between Projects & CGs has proved not to work well in practice. You've just reiterated the case for abolishing it and making CGs and projects into peers. > We have 67 User Groups that don't fit (well) into the current > Community Group/Project structure. Which is exactly why User Group has been proposed as a new collective type. > 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. Agreed. > 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. Frankly I don't give a damn about the OpenSolaris Constitution. It should be there to describe how we run the community in practice, not acting as a fetter. If the Constitution is getting in the way, then either change it or get rid of it. We should not be using it as an reason for hindering the evolution of the community. > 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: That's precisely my point - the existing mechanisms don't fit what we do, aren't followed in practice and should therefore be got rid of. >> 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. I know what the constitution says. It's broken. So? > 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. It appears to be an attempt to force things into a model that we already know doesn't work very well. We need to fix the model of the community, not wedge the community into the model. -- Alan Burlison --
