Glynn Foster wrote: > Hey, > > Stephen Lau wrote: > >> +1 from me >> >> I've always felt a direct ownership of a Project by a CG would create >> more responsibility on the part of the CG to stay current with what's >> going on in the project, and vice versa. >> > > I'm actually not sure I agree, and maybe my opinion touches on what Peter has > already expressed that the Community Group structure has failed. I'd actually > like to see *less* of a bond between Projects and Community Groups. There > should > be an extremely low barrier to entry for project creation - rather than having > to even propose a project, any contributor should be able to JFDI. The project > will succeed depending on the number of people that gather around it and their > determination to complete it. > > We need to encourage the 'go knock yourselves out' mentality. The fact that > someone is interested in starting a project is a great thing and we need to > encourage that. The knowledge and experience they gain during the lifecycle of > that project will be invaluable to the OpenSolaris commons in general, even if > it proves to be a failure. >
Good counterpoint Glynn. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the following! Projects are directly tied to CG's in our Constitution, thus to embrase the above model we'd need to make some changes there during the next election to amend the Constitution. Now, if we do that we really get into trouble because there is no parent looking out for projects, guiding them, or directing decision. If Projects are self sustaining then there is no purpose for a CG, really, and lots of responsibility will land on the shoulders of the OGB who is unlikely to be qualified to make appropriate decisions. The tiered model in which the OGB regulates CG's, and CG's regulate Projects is much more distributed, flexible and responsive. benr.
