Bill Nottingham schrieb: > Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > Q: What are we trying to accomplish? > A: To enable people to do Cool Stuff with Fedora. To enable people > to make Fedora better. +1 > Q: How do we best accomplish this? > A: Empower people, and get out of their way. Well, your have a point, but I don't agree fully. One reasons for it: A clear infrastructure will actually help getting the community involved. Otherwise some contributors might say "I did not know where to ask to get involved, thus I move along to something else" (see the recent discussion about fedora-desktop on fedora-devel -- that shows the problem nicely ). That's what I'd like to avoid. > So, what sort of structure should we have to enact this? > > On top is the Fedora board - the directing organization, the big > picture thinkers, and the resolution point of last resort. +1 > Under them are various subprojects - we have the infrastructure > project, the docs project, etc. So, what new structures do we > *need*? Hear I to disagree. I think it does not work well if we have to much projects on the same level if they have to interact a lot (and those two your porpose have to interact a lot). An reasons for my opinion: the communication and "who does foo" between the Packaging Committee and FESCo sometimes sucked (the recent "conflicts" issue is a good example). Having something like a FTC (Fedora Technical Committee) at the top might help as it can say "Either you work out something until X or we do it, as we and/or group 'b' need a solution *really soon*". > 1) Fedora Packaging Project (or committee, or what have you) > > Charter: > - set packaging standards > - set packager standards > - enforce those standards > - encourage new contributors/contributions I like the parts to have one committee that takes care of both packaging standards and enforcing them.. > Structure? I'm of the opinion that it doesn't really matter - find > people willing to do the work, *and do it*. But I could certainly > see how the current FESCo model can work here, especially since > FESCo handles most (if not all) of these areas. Well, > - set packaging standards > - set packager standards are the job of the Packaging Committee. > 2) Fedora Release Team > > Charter: > - defines the schedule > - defines the feature list (?) > - enforces the freezes I think that could lead to problems if this group handles the freezes if all the other repo work falls into the area of group "1" > - spins such releases that we see fit (pushes the button, pushes > to site, etc.) > > Structure? [...] See above. Just my 2 cent . CU thl _______________________________________________ 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
