On 09.01.2008 09:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:16:22 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 08.01.2008 22:53, David Woodhouse wrote: >>> Perhaps one option would be for non-programmer packagers to team up with >>> a programmer/sponsor to take on the task of package maintenance? >> Don't put more bureaucracy or hurdles in the way. That won't scale and >> will frustrate people and some will feel a second-class citizen > Not just that, it is completely unrealistic to hope that there would be > enough volunteers to fill the "programmer/sponsor" role. [...] +1 >> What >> IMHO would be good instead of what you outline: groups of people (SIGs) >> a package-monkey can contact if he needs help to fix or improve >> something needs programming skills. > Is it necessary to increase complexity of the Fedora Project's structure > by adding lots of small SIGs like that? The Wiki pages are really > troublesome already because it has become increasingly difficult to > navigate in them and find what you are looking for. Additionally, there's > still the problem of over-complex page layout, such as pseudo-menus that > use tables and include files. I'd rather suggest that packagers request > assistance on fedora-devel-list or via some keyword/feature in bugzilla. Hmmm. SIGs for me are not part of "Fedora Project's structure" -- they are just a loose group of people that simply do something without formal structure (they can have one if they want of course). Sure, most SIGs have a page in the Wiki for advertising and tracking, but there is iirc no rule "SIGs must have a page in the wiki". CU knurd _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
