[fab] New project formation is out of control

[Max Spevack]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> Rex Dieter (rdieter at math.unl.edu) said: 
> > Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > 
> > >No one has said much about Patrick's wiki page:
> > >
> > >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects 
> > >
> > >I agreed to drive this project definition problem... My personal
> > >viewpoint is that, like logo usage, we want to be generous but
> > >protective about the Fedora name.  I prefer that the "Ideas" listed in
> > >this page be promoted to "SIGs" since not only do we have a couple, but
> > >"Ideas" sounds a little dismissive.  "SIG" gives the contributors an
> > >immediate feeling of group ownership.  Once a SIG has more plans they
> > >can be owned by an official subproject until they are ready to move on,
> > >if that's necessary.  Input please?
> > 
> > (As I said somewhere else... (: ...) I agree with these sentiments to 
> > keep things simple and stick with only SIG/Project labels.  Otherwise, 
> > IMO, the only item in need of clarifying is who exactly does "Project" 
> > announcements (ie, the Board or the parent Project).
> 
> Works for me. Which board member is going to lay down the law? Or do
> we leave this for Max?

I agree with the sentiments in the thread that we need to have this 
clarity.  I'm happy to lay down the law.

My top priority at the moment is the stuff for /. -- after that, I'll be 
able to tackle this one.

--Max

-- 
Max Spevack
+ http://spevack.org
+ gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc
+ fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21