On Jan 27, 2008 6:18 AM, Ben Rockwood <benr at cuddletech.com> wrote: > > 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'm not convinced. In some ways, the pre-constitution mechanism (float an idea, get some support) was much simpler and more open to projects. (It also didn't imply that projects were layered under CGs.) I'm becoming less and less convinced that the CG structure is working, and I'm not sure that it can be fixed. So trying to force everything into that structure no longer seems wise to me. Ownership of a project implies responsibility; to take on responsibility implies having some power. The real power for many projects will lie in the hands of the manager who controls the budget, and are they going to be integrated? That said, projects should have a single point of contact. Following the CG model, each project should have a named facilitator. That could, I guess, be a CG. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
