On 07/17/2009 06:43 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > ** Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's objectives? This is perhaps the key question to this whole conversation and I think it is important to note here that the question on Fedora's audience seems still open to the board. http://lwn.net/Articles/341290/ There are atleast two users here claiming that it doesn't fit the Fedora objectives and I think that is to a good extend, true. The objectives however are not something written in stone nor is the community around Fedora. The amount of occasions a similar idea or proposal has been put forward suggests there there is definitely community interest in this. I am not sure whether there is enough of a interest in people volunteering to drive this proposal forward. There are only a very small number of people signed up at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Interested_People I did not because it benefits me in any way but because I really do want to understand what the work actually is over a period of time and see for myself if the cost is worth the benefit. I suggest that the board approve the infrastructure request and let the community succeed or fail on its own goals rather than refuse to provide infrastructure and therefore adding a very substantial barrier to entry for interested contributors. The rise in interest in EPEL after the move to Koji and Bodhi suggests that even a different infrastructure is a major barrier even for seasoned contributors. If it was just pushing more updates in a existing branch and if users can continue getting updates for a longer time without doing anything at all, this proposal has a better chance of succeeding. Rahul _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
