John Plocher wrote: > I like the ability of a CG to "endorse" a project - or otherwise connect > itself to the effort.
"Endorse" suggests to me at least a degree of approval, and therefore control, that is in fact not present. I therefore think the term is misleading, and should not be used. > 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. I think it is Members that are "interested", not CGs. CGs can't respond to polls or surveys, only individuals can. Individual Members can be associated with as many CGs and Projects as they like. Conversely, just because I am interested in a given CG or Project, it doesn't follow that I'm also interested in the union of all the other interests of all the Members who are also members of my chosen CG or Project. -- Alan Burlison --
