My $0.02: I wouldn't have SIGs report necessarily to any Project. If an existing project chooses to kick out a new SIG, fine. If someone wants to align a SIG to a Project, fine. But if a SIG wants to sprout in the desert, doing their own work in a little corner of the wiki, then that should be fine, too. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 16:45 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > > My top priority at the moment is the stuff for /. -- after that, I'll > > > > be able to tackle this one. > > > > > > Only problem I see is that news snowballs fast. I have talked to Damien > > > before about a variety of topics, and we spoke about the announcement > > > this very morning. (I'm also currently involved in a f-marketing-l > > > thread about it.) Would it help for me to volunteer to put the policy > > > out there? > > > > > > ("What policy?" many may ask. See elsewhere in the thread for > > > discussion. I'm just volunteering to get the word out since Max is tied > > > up and I am supposed to be pushing this issue anyway.) > > > > That would be great, Paul. If you want to lead, here's the direction: > > > > DefiningProjects needs to get to a final state. > > > > We need to then apply that standard to everything currently under the > > "Fedora Universe" > > > > We need to message it, and abide by it. > > Like Patrick (I believe) said earlier, we need the policy first, then > names. He also said something about presumptuous editing, so I'm > holding off until I'm sure what everyone wants, but I'd like to get it > done today if possible. 'Nuff said. Patrick, if you're listening and > you want a crack at the editing yourself, you're welcome to it, but I > would like to be able to get word out to the affected parties today or > tomorrow to avoid any unwanted snowballing if possible. If you'd prefer > I do it, no problem. > > There's not a lot of editing needed in the DefiningProjects page -- I > think there's really only two phases shown there, Incubator and > "official," which seems to be what everyone wants. I was only thinking > about the following: > > 1. De-emphasize "Ideas" as a separate heading to avoid the appearance > of too much management. (Yes, the politics of PR, sorry.) This seems > cosmetic but I think if some of the content of this section moved into > Incubator Projects -- now to be called "SIGs" to reduce confusion and > pick up a term already used by a number of similar groups working very > well under the Fedora umbrella -- it would go a long way toward making > the page more contributor-friendly. > > 2. Make the point that only Fedora Projects make announcements, press > releases, etc. outside their integral channels (mailing lists, etc.). > SIGs do this through their managing Project. SIGs are always able to > make announcements in their own channels. > > 3. Is it worth saying that we don't want to go more than one level > deep? Else we risk overmanagement and contributor frustration. Board > -> Projects -> SIGs. That's plenty of organization, IMHO. > > I'm trying not to talk this to death but I want to make sure the message > is clear. > > -- > Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ > gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 > Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board > Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject > _______________________________________________ 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
