On 1/27/08, Ben Rockwood <benr at cuddletech.com> wrote: > 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.
Many of the current communities were originally SIGs, set up before we had a constitution to work to. I suspect that it was a mistake to take those existing communities and try to turn them into CGs. OK, so many of them are dysfunctional as CGs. But I think that many of many work just fine as SIGs, which isn't much of a surprise because it's how they were originally chartered. So I don't think we should restructure the communities because they're not effective CGs, but should build a separate governance structure that matches how development is managed, and any current CGs that match can fit into that structure and the rest can go back to being SIGs. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
