On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
> I remember Roy Fielding making a point (in a conversation) that the
> single most useful and productive Apache related governance activity,
> was/is a monthly ("status") conf call with each group.It is actually a quarterly email message from the project chair to the ASF board, detailing status and issues. Apache project == CG and chair == facilitator. Speaking of which, the scope of a CG should exactly match the social community for which it is responsible. Otherwise, decisions by consensus won't work because all the people voting on a given issue have not earned the respect of all the people affected by the vote. It is better to have one project per CG than to have a smaller number of dysfunctional CGs trying to act like an engineering hierarchy. The OGB goal should be to weed out the dysfunctional CGs and not interfere with the functional ones. In open source, it is even okay to have two or more different communities working on the same problem space, with competing solutions: this organization does not need to be bound by one company's zero-sum resource constraints. ....Roy
