On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> Agreed, and there have been discussions of opening the process. For now
> it's a meritocracy. Follow the process, become known to the community,
> make some good contributions, then ask for a higher level of access.
> Chances are it will be granted.
...
> P.S. Also develop a thick skin. :-) This could be a proving-ground for
> technical writers in-training, and the constructive criticism can
> sometimes be a bit heavy, but it is generally well-intended.
As one of the lead mosquito's [1], I resemble that remark
Seriously, to me, I've been thinking about it the source of my
concern for the last couple of weeks, and the tension comes
down to 'core' v 'adjunct' and has a reasonably simple
resolution -- split the two, and put all non-core material in
a 'projects.centos.org' sub domain
That would permit a clear division of 'official' content --
rebuilds of upstream doco, an authoritative 'watched' wiki
component for docoing CentOS specific variants, a
target to point to as to recurring IRC, forum, etc issues, and
another place open much more widely (in: x.projects. ... ) for
whatever the cat wants to drag in. I'll happily ignore what
happens in 'projects', and the 'official' retains merit
without pollution
We do it with the division between [base] and [updates] - v -
[centosplus] and [testing] split ... I am examining [extras]
content this week, and suspect I'll find some vulnerable items
that I've not been watching for. I had missed the fact we
were shipping [addons] and [extras] enabled, as I always drop
in custom configs for yum, and I need to complete an audit.
[[addons] is empty as to C5 where my focus lies -- it too
needs a review for prior versions]
Just my current thinking
-- Russ herrold
[1] http://blog.petaflop.de/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/giant-mosquito-bites-riesenmoskito-riesenmuecke-end-of-alaska-highway-mile-1422-delta-junction-alaska-usa-dscn0969.jpg
