Request: please consider clarifying the project's position on Spins

[Bill Nottingham]

Adam Williamson (awilliam at redhat.com) said: 
> > (Now, if we want each spin to fork off their own subproject, with their
> > own rel-eng, their own QA, and maybe even their own SCM branches?
> > That's more likely to scale.)
> 
> This is the model I *really* want to avoid, because it defeats the whole
> purpose of having a project. What I'd prefer to see is the model where
> we have project-wide general groups, but SIGs contribute actual work.

I'd prefer to see this model too; it's sort of what spins was originally
conceived as. However, it was suggested in this thread that this isn't
good enough for people (or just may not be working right), so I was trying
to propose other options that I think would work better than the suggested
'have the project's resources split entirely across all spins, however
many there are'.

Bill