Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Michelle Luna wrote: > >> Thanks Valerie, >> >> My comments inline. >> >> Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: >>> Hi gang - >>> >>> here is my feedback on the Group Lifecycle Administrative Proceedures >>> document. >>> >>> I am a bit confused, as this document seems to cover project lifecycle, >>> but then we also have a project instantiation document (or was that >>> project instantiation doc the one that was for the old constitution? >>> if so, it may help to remove it from the list) >> >> Nevermind the instantiation document, the feedback was too late for me >> to incorporate. > > Hi Michelle - > > I'm still confused. Does that mean that document is no longer valid > and should not be referenced?
Correct the new draft_project_request document is just that, a draft that was never realized. We fall back to the old project_instantiation.txt and leave it to the next OGB to update, unfortunately. It is completely separate from the Constitution and the website project setup documents. > >>> Step #4 in creation process seems like it could be a black hole. A >>> simple: >>> "Wait" seems like something that may never happen, unlike our current >>> process where ogb-discuss is notified when something like this is ready >>> and the project creation alias. >> >> I think bug management should be expected, so I don't see this as a >> black hole at all, at least it is less of a black hole than sending >> mail to a list which is the current process. > > I don't think it's obvious, the way this is written "wait" is a black hole. It says, as someone becomes available the request will be processed. We can vote on it tomorrow. -Michelle > >>> The creation process (step #3) is in conflict with the Group Management >>> document that requires 3 votes for the creation, and here just >>> requires one (besides yourself). >> >> Got it, this is fixed. > > Thank you, > > Valerie
