reviving Fedora Legacy

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:
> There are 2 reasons why I don't want to flesh it too much. One is
> because I think it is an iterative process, we don't need much to start
> and we'll see how it goes, and in the start it won't be public, only
> something experimental.

I've no problem with interested people making an experimental stab at
this.  if the intent is to have FESCo revisit this in like a year or
something, try to setup the metrics or milestones now that will form
the basis of that future progress review.

I will say however, that if the initial mission and goals for a SIG
are too ill-defined you may have a problem harnessing manpower and
have everyone pulling the effort forward in a common direction.  Just
be wary of that.  As you move forward and create a SIG, I'm going to
need something concrete enough as a statement so when I'm talking to
people "outside" about their interests I know whether or not to point
them to this SIG as a place to dig in and help.  The last thing I want
to do is encourage people with dissimilar needs/interest to sit in a
room together and have them fight with each other.

> In fact I think that something that should be
> discussed within the SIG is how hard we try to keep a possible
> upgrade path toward the next RHEL/EPEL.

That statement right there, is probably simultaneously the hardest and
potentially rewarding objective that an extended update effort could
attempt to achieve.  And its a far different thing to state that as an
objective to work towards over just saying maintainers can do whatever
they want.  But to do it well, would probably require a consensual
understanding by Red Hat and the external community that such an
upgrade path was a valuable thing to work towards together.

-jef