epel

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 05.01.2007 13:18, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 01:08:10PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 05.01.2007 12:57, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 05:50:20AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>> I believe EPEL is open to contributors that currently have 5 or more
>>>> packages and/or sponsor status.  There is no need to wait for Luke's
>>>> work.
>>>> However, one thing that contributors might want wait on is an updated
>>>> mock package with EPEL configs.  I've got a bug opened to get that done
>>>> and just need to find some time.
>>> What exactly does a contributor need to do to branch into which RHEL
>>> branches? And where do the packages land in?
>> Dgilmore promised in yesterday meeting to
>> - send a mail that answers this sort of questions
>> - that he'll try to drive this whole effort a bit more to get it
>> flying - but I'm sure he'll be glad if people help. A real EPEL SIG that 
>> meets now and then and works out the details and leads EPEL is IMHO overdue.
> Well, I was very eager to help from the very beginning (I think my
> whining got Karsten to setup the 108 list), but w/o any info I don't
> have a handle to do anything.

The FESCo <-> "Packager community" communication is IMHO the problem. It 
seems FESCo want contributors to participate in the FESCo meetings 
and/or step up and simply do stuff they think Extras needs. But some 
contributors seems to say "FESCo, here is a problem, please solve it" 
and/or they don't even notice that FESCo needs help.

That FESCo's fault.

We need to improve this, suggestions welcomed. Two things I'm planing to 
improve the situation:
- let somebody else do the job of the FESCo-chair after the next 
election. Fresh blood, new ideas hopefully help. Maybe even earlier if 
someone steps up from current FESCo -- not sure. Handling the big merge 
with the current team might be more important ATM.
- maintain a public list of things were FESCo/Extras in general needs a 
helping hand.

> Perhaps it was wrong to move the discussion out of the 108 list,
> because now noone really knows who is doing what where and what is
> being discussed by which parties.

Might be part of the problem (others will say that more mailing lists 
are the problem), but the real problem IMHO is: It lacked a real driver. 
I tried to do that, but I'm buried with other work already and thus 
tried to move it over to mmcgrath and dgilmore. They did a lot of work 
for it, but they have a lot of other work to do already, too. :-/

CU
thl