Richard Lowe wrote: > The current ON CG is disfunctional, unapproachable (as a CG), and > barely extant.
Then clearly the correct resolution is for the OGB to fix it. >> The current ON CG is clearly a bad idea, and should be restructured or >> replaced. > > I would suggest that making it function exactly as described above > would be a great start. > > Communities do not "own" projects, they endorse them, and provide > advice and guidance, exactly as you described the C-Team giving > projects teams guidance above. The word "endorse" appears nowhere in the Constitution, what does appear is a statement that says that Projects are set up and disbanded by CGs as necessary to achieve the aims of the CG. In my mind at least that has a strong whiff of ownership. In addition, the establishment and closure of Projects is via a vote of the members of the relevant CG, and that clearly implies that a single CG is responsible for a Project. I don't much care what word we use, but the current "sponsors" sitation clearly doesn't work and needs to be discontinued. -- Alan Burlison --
