[fab] New project formation is out of control

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

My $0.02:

I wouldn't have SIGs report necessarily to any Project.  If an existing
project chooses to kick out a new SIG, fine.  If someone wants to align a
SIG to a Project, fine.  But if a SIG wants to sprout in the desert, doing
their own work in a little corner of the wiki, then that should be fine,
too.

--g

-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 16:45 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > > > My top priority at the moment is the stuff for /. -- after that, I'll 
> > > > be able to tackle this one.
> > > 
> > > Only problem I see is that news snowballs fast.  I have talked to Damien 
> > > before about a variety of topics, and we spoke about the announcement 
> > > this very morning.  (I'm also currently involved in a f-marketing-l 
> > > thread about it.)  Would it help for me to volunteer to put the policy 
> > > out there?
> > > 
> > > ("What policy?" many may ask.  See elsewhere in the thread for 
> > > discussion.  I'm just volunteering to get the word out since Max is tied 
> > > up and I am supposed to be pushing this issue anyway.)
> > 
> > That would be great, Paul.  If you want to lead, here's the direction:
> > 
> > DefiningProjects needs to get to a final state.
> > 
> > We need to then apply that standard to everything currently under the 
> > "Fedora Universe"
> > 
> > We need to message it, and abide by it.
> 
> Like Patrick (I believe) said earlier, we need the policy first, then
> names.  He also said something about presumptuous editing, so I'm
> holding off until I'm sure what everyone wants, but I'd like to get it
> done today if possible.  'Nuff said.  Patrick, if you're listening and
> you want a crack at the editing yourself, you're welcome to it, but I
> would like to be able to get word out to the affected parties today or
> tomorrow to avoid any unwanted snowballing if possible.  If you'd prefer
> I do it, no problem.
> 
> There's not a lot of editing needed in the DefiningProjects page -- I
> think there's really only two phases shown there, Incubator and
> "official," which seems to be what everyone wants.  I was only thinking
> about the following:
> 
> 1.  De-emphasize "Ideas" as a separate heading to avoid the appearance
> of too much management.  (Yes, the politics of PR, sorry.)  This seems
> cosmetic but I think if some of the content of this section moved into
> Incubator Projects -- now to be called "SIGs" to reduce confusion and
> pick up a term already used by a number of similar groups working very
> well under the Fedora umbrella -- it would go a long way toward making
> the page more contributor-friendly.
> 
> 2.  Make the point that only Fedora Projects make announcements, press
> releases, etc. outside their integral channels (mailing lists, etc.).
> SIGs do this through their managing Project.  SIGs are always able to
> make announcements in their own channels.
> 
> 3.  Is it worth saying that we don't want to go more than one level
> deep?  Else we risk overmanagement and contributor frustration.  Board
> -> Projects -> SIGs.  That's plenty of organization, IMHO.
> 
> I'm trying not to talk this to death but I want to make sure the message
> is clear.
> 
> -- 
> Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
>   gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
>        Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
>     Fedora Docs Project:  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
>