Alan Burlison wrote:
> I know we currently have a situation where multiple Community Groups
> (CGs) apparently "sponsor" a single Project, but the more I think about
> the issues it has caused, and the more I read the Constitution, the more
> problematic the practice seems to be.
I like the ability of a CG to "endorse" a project - or otherwise connect itself
to the effort. But, I agree that the connections get confusing. Maybe there
could be a single "owner" relationship (a project is Owned by one CG; a CG can
own many projects) with multiple "interest" relationships (a project can be
OfInterest to many CGs, CGs may be interested in many projects).
This would give us:
"Owner" CGs are responsible for governance and lifecycle stuff.
"Interested" CGs would get automatically informed of Project Announcements
and other project lifecycle events, and may participate in polls and surveys
(...)
related to the project, but are not part of the project's governance chain.
-John
