In going through the project structure wiki, I've come across a thing I've always thought a little funny. Fedora Project is an umbrella term, and underneath that, we have an official thing called a ... Project. Does anyone object to consistently referring to these as, instead, Subprojects? Additionally, while <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Defining_projects> has a formal procedure for these subprojects, we haven't particularly followed up on things like "Projects at this stage are expected to provide regular progress reports and to maintain an active state." As we were talking about having some of the Council meetings being reporting-focused, I think this might be a natural fit for bringing reality in line with the documentation. On the other hand, the section on SIGs focuses on the path to becoming a full Project Project, while the praxis is really captured in the last sentences: "It is possible for SIGs to exist indefinitely in this manner if the contributors feel there is no need for official project status. Indeed, many SIGs are sufficiently narrow in focus that they do not require project status to fulfill their missions." Here, I think it'd be better to rewrite this to put the SIGs-as-they-are aspect first and the incubator possibility as second. And then, of course, there's no mention of the Fedora.next structure here at all. The Working Groups we established are in many ways effectively each Subprojects (and the standards they're meant to be held to are similar); should they be considered as part of that, or as something distinct? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
