According to the documentation, you need to be a Server \ Site Administrator (or newly added type 'Creator') to become a Project Owner:
Leaving aside the 'Creator' role, as the Server environment I am working with is not using the new role types - why is it that you need to be an Administrator to be a Project Owner?
If you need to be Site Administrator to be a Project Owner, and Site Administrators have privileges above and beyond a Project Owner, what’s the point of a Project Owner?
For example, why do I need to be made Project Owner to grant someone permissions on a specific project when I have the ability the grant permissions (and even change the structure of permissions) on the whole Site as a Site Administrator?
I have found this to be true on our Production Server which is 10.3, but to add to the confusion, I have upgraded the Test Server to 10.5.3 and this seems to not be the case where I can add anyone with a 'Publisher' role as a Project Owner.
For our use case we will definitely have to assign Business Users as Project Leader roles instead of Project Owner roles if the above remains true after we upgrade. The idea of giving key users ownership over the content in their area, and who they share it with, was one that I thought makes a lot of sense, but it cannot work if it also means granting business people IT specific privileges on the Site overall… Or even privileges to alter someone else’s project. Seems a big oversight.
Any clarity or insight on this would be appreciated.
For our organization Project Owner is ignored since it's me, the other Server Administrator, or one of the Site Administrators that are responsible for creating Projects. I don't see the purpose of a Project Owner.
I would recommend using the documentation of the version you're using. Use the latest documentation when you're planning on upgrading or for idle curiosity.