OK, here's my simplistic process overview:
1) Contributor suggests new project to a Steering Committee (talking
generally here - devel, ambassadors, etc)
2) Committee discusses it first
ok - project idea goes to "help needed" page
not ok - standard and careful reply "... project idea is against
Fedora's goals as you can see in fedoraproject.org/wiki...."
3) Once the project has at least 3 contributors, it can be named as
"Fedora official", then have a dedicated wiki page
After all, we still have control over www.fedoraproject.org...
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:22 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
I'm a little concerned by a recent chain of events. Damien Durand recently
decided that running interviews of Fedora contributors was a worthy project
and began working, without support, to make it a reality. This, in itself,
is good. We need people who take initiative. The problem is the subsequent
announcement and adoption without review, and this is just a symptom of a
larger, standing issue.
As soon as Damien put up a page and interviewed Chitlesh Goorah, he sent an
announcement to fedora-marketing-list and made a post in his blog. Then,
Thomas included the announcement in the Fedora Weekly News report. The
problem is that this program has had no peer review and doesn't have any
support within the Fedora Project. I had instructed Damien to make a post to
fedora-marketing-list to let the Marketing team know what he was working on
and to ask for feedback, not to provide a formal announcement.
My concern with this particular project is that it is doing something that is
already being done and for which a new venue is not needed. RHM already has
a column that features contributor interviews, and assorted other sources
already allow contributors to be introduced to the community. Without the
interest and resources going into Fedora Interview, I'm not sure it can
really succeed. If the Marketing team adopted the idea and decided to
support it, then we could have given more consideration into what we would
throw behind the program. Another issue is the fact that Damien has not had
the time to correct the issues that have already been pointed out. Moving to
a public announcement was premature.
This really only highlights and underlying problem. We have a number of new
or inexperienced contributors who are in a hurry to start up their own
initiatives. We already have a significant number of projects that need more
attention, not separation. These new contributors take advantage of the
freedom they are given to stake out grounds without peer support. This is
fracturing our community and leaving all kinds of loose and dead ends.
Another fine example of this issue is Clair Shaw's Word of Mouth program.
Many of these initiatives are popping up under Ambassadors and Marketing,
simply because the Ambassadors have an immediate sense of involvement and
power, but this problem spreads well beyond those projects. We need to be
flexible in allowing the formation of new programs, but allowing the creation
and branding of new programs without any controls in place will soon dilute
the standings of existing projects and will introduce confusion.
With these small, unsupported programs popping up everywhere, projects are
fracturing and initiatives are failing. We need to work on tightening
controls and focusing the contributor energy where it is needed. It's time
to consider establishing policies and practices for the formation of new
projects and programs. This needs to happen at two levels. We need policies
for the creation or promotion of projects at the top level, and individual
projects need policies for the formation of sub-projects. If we don't exert
control now, we'll have a hard time regaining it in the future.
Is it my imagination, or has this just happened again?
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-August/msg00006.html
(and others)
No mailing list discussions that I can find,
IIRC, The last discussion on this issue petered out with most of the
discussion centering on whether "Project" should be "Program," or
"Team," or "Collective," or "Arbeitgruppe," or whatever. Two
"coopetitive" views were put out, I think:
1. The more the merrier, and let evolution weed 'em out.
2. Contributors need to prove they have what it takes to carry the
Fedora banner.
No one has said much about Patrick's wiki page:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects
I agreed to drive this project definition problem... My personal
viewpoint is that, like logo usage, we want to be generous but
protective about the Fedora name. I prefer that the "Ideas" listed in
this page be promoted to "SIGs" since not only do we have a couple, but
"Ideas" sounds a little dismissive. "SIG" gives the contributors an
immediate feeling of group ownership. Once a SIG has more plans they
can be owned by an official subproject until they are ready to move on,
if that's necessary. Input please?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
begin:vcard
fn:David Barzilay
n:Barzilay;David
org:Red Hat Brasil
adr;quoted-printable;quoted-printable:;;Av. Ang=C3=A9lica, 2.503 - 8o andar;S=C3=A3o Paulo;SP;01227-200;Brasil
email;internet:barzilay@xxxxxxxxxx
title:Marketing and Community Manager
tel;work:(+5511) 3124 6000
tel;home:(+5511) 3259 6212
url:http://www.br.redhat.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list
fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
