+1 from me I've always felt a direct ownership of a Project by a CG would create more responsibility on the part of the CG to stay current with what's going on in the project, and vice versa.
-steve 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 > -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
