Hey, Ben Rockwood wrote: > 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.
There are people already more qualified than the OGB to be the guiding parents to projects. While the Community Group may have served that previously from an abstract high level (and often not), the real heroes here are actually the module maintainers and the ARC. The responsibility, I believe, should be at the project level. If they are really interested in interacting with parts of the system or integrating into an existing consolidation, they need be communicating with the right people about that. I believe we need to encourage it, but not artificially force it. Glynn
