Glynn Foster wrote: > 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. >
In an ideal world the module maintainers, gatekeepers, ARC members, etc, would actually be the Core Contribs of a given CG. If those persons were Core Contribs and made all their decisions in the open, for all to see and potentially be part of, then we'd really have a very open and transparent development community! But... we can't force that to happen. For greater clarity Glynn, could you perhaps provide an example re-shuffle that matches your model? benr.
