Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 06:22:13PM +0000, Peter Tribble wrote: > > >> I'm becoming less and less convinced that the CG structure >> is working, and I'm not sure that it can be fixed. So trying to >> force everything into that structure no longer seems wise to me. >> > > Yes. This is the real problem. > > Doing away with multiple endorsements would have the benefits that > have been noted in this thread. Unfortunately, most CGs that exist > today are narrow SIGs; they are not scoped in a way that would > encourage the kind of projects I hope we value. Suppose that SMF (and > thus the SMF CG) did not exist today. What CG would create it? See > my thoughts on this in Mr. Plocher's thread. >
In some senses the ON CG is the mother from which others flow. The idea is that most OS projects are going to intersect with ON to some degree, thus becoming projects of that CG. At some later point the grow sufficiently to be "upgraded" to a CG. For example, if we ran the clock back, SMF or DTrace might have started as ON Projects. As they grew and matured they would have reached a point at which they needed to be upgraded to a full CG. Dr. Fielding has spoken of this in the past at ASF, where they regularly look for Sub-Projects that take on a life of their own and need to be uplifted into full Project status. As to the comment regarding most CG's being SIG's today... I agree. We have known for some time (see OGB/2007/002) that a lot of shuffling needs to occur, and in many cases CG's just need to be destroyed. If a CG isn't operating properly then its useless and needs to be removed, with the hope that at some point it will come back to life with proper organization and determination. But before we can go around smashing CG's and Projects we need to address the current cultural misunderstanding in how the system is supposed to work. Most of the friction that comes from any discussion of removing a CG today is the result of a misunderstanding in their function, organization, and implementation. benr.