On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:42 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > Leader (perhaps aka maintainer), absolutely. Chair of a committee, > > > yes, but dependent on size of the project of course. > > > > Agreed -- we shouldn't be imposing that everything which is a project or > > SIG be run like it's a government. > > Not saying we should. But somebody needs to be accountable for the basic > tasks of every PMC, at the very least. Meaning: This gets to the heart of my other mail, though... eg, there are definitely types of projects for which meetings aren't the answer for really _any_ question. And trying to put that structure around them could well get to "well, why would I be a Fedora project then?" The idea of groups with meetings, task lists, etc are all good for certain types of projects (eg, extras, marketing, etc). But for things which largely revolve around code, then I just don't see it being successful. It's the difference between the Linux kernel and the BSD kernel communities. So it all depends on what _kinds_ of projects we're talking about. [snip] > It also calls these open questions: > > 1. Is Fedora Directory Server a real project, by this standard? > 2. How about Fedora Translations? > 3. How about Fedora Live CD? Yep, and I really do think there is or needs to be a third classification. While your set of things works for some classes of projects, for others, I think the overhead is more likely to a) turn the project off of being a "Fedora" project or b) run it into the ground. Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe we don't care about having those as Fedora projects. But I know that a lot of what we currently actively work on falls into those camps. > === > > SIGs, on the other hand, can be dead simple. Just a descriptive paragraph > and a link to a mailing list. ... or maybe, we just roll the things which don't meet the above up and call them a SIG? Heck, maybe it doesn't really matter at the end of the day :) Jeremy