redefining SIGs (old and new)

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:

> Jef has some hot ideas here so I'm OK with him co-opting the SIG
> usage/namespace.
>
> However, it has had a historical meaning in Fedora and what do we
> replace that with?
>
> SIG has meant, a group starting around something that wasn't ready to go
> through the formal project process:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects
>
> "A SIG earns official project status through successful accomplishment
> of objectives that warrant more prominence in the Fedora Project. If
> contributors request it, the parent project or the Fedora Project Board
> will evaluate the SIG's progress reports and make a determination of
> readiness for this stage. At this point, it may be branded with the
> Fedora name and promoted to the full status of a Fedora project. It can
> join the ranks of the most valuable initiatives currently leading the
> Fedora Project."
>
> What do we call that incubation stage?
>
> I ask because we just voted yesterday to form the Marketing SIG, but Jef
> is reasonably arguing that Docs, Marketing, etc. are support services in
> his new SIG model.  OTOH, I'm sure that if, at this stage, we had to
> follow all the project definition rules to get an official "Marketing
> Project", we'd bury half the interested people and lose a lot of
> momentum.

Why?

Marketing has a ton of tasks and some leadership.  Why can't we set up 
governance for the Marketing group?  What hurdles are there to clear?

--g

-- 
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"