On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 08:06:09AM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote: > It's not completely ad-hoc, it was part of the Project Instantiation > Process document.
Yeah. But if it would encourage Groups to take responsibility for managing themselves, I'd be happy to see the multi-endorser framework replaced by a single-owner one. And it's a simple change that wouldn't make much practical difference in the project instantiation procedure. That said, there are plenty of single-owner Projects that surely aren't receiving enough guidance or attention from their owners, and I think that's the real problem. As a thought experiment, would anyone have been more willing to break up or terminate the Desktop Group if it were the sole owner of the Indiana Project (which is obviously outside its proper charter)? Didn't think so. And one can point at Jim's rationale as concrete evidence for that: if the reason for not taking action is that it's unclear how the breakaway Group should be scoped, it makes no difference whether the original Group is a sole owner or one of many endorsers. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
