Hi Ben, Here's my perspective from my part of the world. The 1:1 owner relationship exists between consolidations and communities. Consolidations are tightly owned 1:1, Projects are less so. Projects are where multiple CGs have a chance to work together loosely, so that is why there are multiple CGs endorsing single projects, in my experience. This is not a meaningless connection at all, (see below for examples) but it is one that CGs have slowly started to make as a result of more conversations about the Constitution that clarify the 'endorsement' connection and why it should exist.
So, for the Docs Community, we 'own' two consolidations (docs and man pages) where we house the largest most stable sets of content for Nevada and we are solely responsible for delivery. On the other end of the 'stability' and 'process' spectrum, we contribute to and endorse 7 Projects that house the most unstable, freshest, and process-light content, 5 of which are co-sponsored by other CGs because we're working together on this new stuff. For example, smf-doc project is co-sponsored by Docs CG and SMF CG. Starter Kit project is co-sponsored by Academic & Research and Docs CGs, Multi-Lingual Glossary is co-sponsored by Docs CG and Internationalization and Globalization CG. We co-sponsor and share the responsibilities for work jointly, because there is so much cross-over, we couldn't develop or complete any of these projects without the work of the co-sponsoring CG. So, Docs CG cannot and should not 'own' any of these projects alone as you suggest. Hope this helps, -Michelle Ben Rockwood wrote: > As I continue to review our framework, I am increasingly distressed by > the misuse and mishandling of Projects. > > The first order of business in this regard is to completely do away with > the idea of Project Endorsements. As described (loosely) by the > Constitution, work should be occurring in Projects which are governed by > a CG. Projects should be very lightweight, and I believe that they are, > being initiated at the sole discression of a CG Core Contrib decision, > provided a repository (SVN or Hg today) for work, and allowing a sandbox > for development to occur. > > Currently Projects aren't explicitly owned by anyone, they can be > endorsed by any group that wishes to do so, which is as meaningless as > "Affiliating" with a CG. I think its of interest to know what projects > a CG is interested in, but it does not denote ownership. > > Projects should, and must, be explicitly owned by a singular CG. > Currently that ownership is simply, at best, implied. > > > > I'd like to gather some opinions on the matter before I put forth a > formal motion. > > benr. > _______________________________________________ > ogb-discuss mailing list > ogb-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss >
