46 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
46 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
|
# Decision: Confirm tegwick-control as root control repo
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Status: Open
|
||
|
|
Date: 2026-06-22
|
||
|
|
Record: DEC-002
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Context
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Multiple organizations (binky, helix, coulomb, sloppers, whynot, plenitude)
|
||
|
|
each may eventually have their own control repositories. The landscape needs a
|
||
|
|
single personal operating layer that coordinates without absorbing all work.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Options
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Option 1 — tegwick-control is the root control repo
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
`tegwick-control` holds the personal landscape map, cross-org priorities, and
|
||
|
|
intake pipeline. Organization-specific control repos (e.g. `whynot-control`)
|
||
|
|
handle domain-specialized intake.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Option 2 — Shared neutral repo
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A non-personal-named repo serves as root; tegwick-control becomes one area
|
||
|
|
among equals.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Option 3 — Defer
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Operate with tegwick-control as provisional root until another structure proves
|
||
|
|
necessary.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Decision
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Pending human confirmation.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Rationale
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(To be filled when accepted or rejected.)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Consequences
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
If Option 1 is accepted, landscape reviews, activation guardrails, and
|
||
|
|
cross-org workstream priority default to this repository.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Review
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Revisit if a second root-level control repo creates conflicting priorities.
|