On Jan 27, 2008 12:18 AM, Ben Rockwood <benr at cuddletech.com> 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 believe projects should be directly responsible to a single CG to ensure that it is clear which CG is responsible for the "caretaking" of one. As a member of the at-large community, of which the OGB is part of, I cast my vote as +1, as a nomination in favour of this proposal. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben
