Let's re-start a discussion about role-based SIGs

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay now that F9 is out the door, and before I've voted out of office,
> its time to take another stab at a discussion about building and
> strengthening the abilities of role based SIGs inside the Fedora
> projects moving forward.
>
> I've come to picture the work the Fedora project needs to do as
> structured in terms of two types of communities (I have to credit Greg
> for some of the refinement on the image from the last round of
> discussion about this a few months back). One such type of community I
> would name "Subprojects". A subproject would be a group of peers who
> are doing roughly the same things, and could be considered a guild for
> a particular type of skilled labor. The other type of community I
> would name "Special Interest Groups" (SIGS), and each SIG would
> encompass all roles from users to developers that are needed to
> sustain the growth of software usage and development for a particular
> purpose.
>

To help me work on a conversation... would

EPEL would be a sub-project or a SIG?
PPC port would be a sub-project or a SIG? [The picture says
sub-project.. but I want to confirm]

The next issue would be can people fill different roles: Mairin Duffy
would hit multiple areas. I don't see anything in the proposal that
says they can't but its long and I might have missed it.

The third issue is management. Each SIG and Sub Project would require
their own management structure. Are they overlapping or are they
complementary? What size should they be and how do they map to an
overall tree (some people hate trees, others require some knowledge of
their local ape grooming structure to function.)




-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"