Keith M Wesolowski 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.
Agreed. > 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. All true, but the current confusion over who actually owns a Project only exacerbates the problem, and IMHO that alone is reason enough for my proposed change - let alone that the current situation appears to be in conflict with the Constitution, especially in the area of voting procedure for Project establishment and termination. -- Alan Burlison --
