Spins

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:27 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> 
> Having said that, Sugar and OLPC are a pretty big deal.  The spin has been
> approved by the board and is (or will be) an official spin.  

Small comment.  The board gave the Sugar spin the approval to use the
Fedora brand.  This doesn't automatically mean that it'll become a
produced and hosted spin in binary format.  All it means is that the
spin KS config can live in the spin-kickstarts repo and use the Fedora
branding should somebody create the binary spin from the config.  It
would still have to have a Feature proposed and approved by the spins
SIG and by releng before it would be an official spin.

> We have
> hosting for unofficial spins.

We do? What is it?

>   I know this delineation seems very minor
> "well if you have hosting for unofficial spins, why not just host this
> official spin there"
> 
> The reason is the accountability I mentioned earlier.  There's a lot going
> on in Fedora right now.  There are a lot of hosting options in Fedora
> Infrastructure.  Each were designed and built for a specific purpose.  But
> I cannot allow one part of our infrastructure to be a "route around point"
> for other parts of our infrastructure.
> 
> This is a small but important detail.  I'd like to make an exception for
> OLPC and the Sugar build.  I know not the reasons this build did not make
> the feature freeze but they did not.  When they asked for space on Fedora
> People they were told no.  So they kept asking around until someone
> increased their space on Fedora People and I had to be the bad guy.
> 
> So here's what I'd propose.  For now we'll host the unofficial Sugar spin
> at our alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/ 

Ah, is that the hosting space for unofficial spins?

> site until it gets built as an official
> spin which, according to releng, will be the F11 alpha.  I'm pushing the
> responsibility of this decision on to FAB because if it were up to me, I'd
> say no.
> 
> If the tone of this email sounds harsh please note it is not directed at
> the Sugar Spin people, this kind of stuff has happened before and we just
> can't have it anymore.  Fedora's policies and procedures are far from
> perfect, but they are there.  If you don't like them change them but don't
> think Infrastructure is going to route around what has been put in place.
> 
> Since there doesn't seem to be any official decision making process for
> FAB, I'll wait until Monday and if the +1's out weigh the -1's then I'll
> get it copied and hosted.

Honestly this feels like a board issue, which is why I asked for it to
be brought to FAB.  One of the options mentioned was to have a binary
version of the spin produced by the spin owner and hosted on OLPC
resources.  I'm fine with this, the only catch is that the sources for
what goes into the spin will also have to be hosted over at OLPC for the
duration of time that the binary spin is there.  This shouldn't be a big
deal, but it needs to be done.

Once the sugar spin goes through the Feature process and gets accepted
as a spin that the Fedora project will generate and host in binary form,
then we can talk about removing it from OLPC infrastructure.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20081031/b7cf5b70/attachment.sig>