On 1/27/08, Ben Rockwood <benr at cuddletech.com> 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.
Why does a project need to be directed by an external agency? Aren't project teams capable of sorting themselves out? I would expect that projects would form relationships with other component parts of OS.o, and would do so freely rather than being forced to. In other words, projects have as much independence as they want, but are of course free to seek advice and guidance from others as and when the opportunity and need arises. > The tiered model in which the OGB regulates CG's, and CG's regulate > Projects is much more distributed, flexible and responsive. I don't think the world is hierarchical. If we allow anything that does work to be a project, then projects could be above or below communities, and may be horizontally or vertically structured. I see projects as being completely first-class citizens in their own right. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
