how to govern and manage the new combined repository
Thorsten Leemhuis
fedora at leemhuis.info
Thu Jan 11 17:55:32 UTC 2007
Bill Nottingham schrieb:
> Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said:
> Q: What are we trying to accomplish?
> A: To enable people to do Cool Stuff with Fedora. To enable people
> to make Fedora better.
+1
> Q: How do we best accomplish this?
> A: Empower people, and get out of their way.
Well, your have a point, but I don't agree fully. One reasons for it: A
clear infrastructure will actually help getting the community involved.
Otherwise some contributors might say "I did not know where to ask to
get involved, thus I move along to something else" (see the recent
discussion about fedora-desktop on fedora-devel -- that shows the
problem nicely ). That's what I'd like to avoid.
> So, what sort of structure should we have to enact this?
>
> On top is the Fedora board - the directing organization, the big
> picture thinkers, and the resolution point of last resort.
+1
> Under them are various subprojects - we have the infrastructure
> project, the docs project, etc. So, what new structures do we
> *need*?
Hear I to disagree. I think it does not work well if we have to much
projects on the same level if they have to interact a lot (and those two
your porpose have to interact a lot).
An reasons for my opinion: the communication and "who does foo" between
the Packaging Committee and FESCo sometimes sucked (the recent
"conflicts" issue is a good example). Having something like a FTC
(Fedora Technical Committee) at the top might help as it can say "Either
you work out something until X or we do it, as we and/or group 'b' need
a solution *really soon*".
> 1) Fedora Packaging Project (or committee, or what have you)
>
> Charter:
> - set packaging standards
> - set packager standards
> - enforce those standards
> - encourage new contributors/contributions
I like the parts to have one committee that takes care of both packaging
standards and enforcing them..
> Structure? I'm of the opinion that it doesn't really matter - find
> people willing to do the work, *and do it*. But I could certainly
> see how the current FESCo model can work here, especially since
> FESCo handles most (if not all) of these areas.
Well,
> - set packaging standards
> - set packager standards
are the job of the Packaging Committee.
> 2) Fedora Release Team
>
> Charter:
> - defines the schedule
> - defines the feature list (?)
> - enforces the freezes
I think that could lead to problems if this group handles the freezes if
all the other repo work falls into the area of group "1"
> - spins such releases that we see fit (pushes the button, pushes
> to site, etc.)
>
> Structure? [...]
See above.
Just my 2 cent .
CU
thl
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list