On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 04:52:03PM -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:17:06PM -0700, Pete Travis wrote: > > On Feb 26, 2015 1:59 PM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:37:55AM -0700, Pete Travis wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 2015 6:57 AM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I wanted to resurface the third party repository topic before we get > > > > > to next week's meeting. Currently we have the following page drafted > > > > > that discusses the new disabled repo feature currently in Fedora 22 > > > > > Workstation: > > > > > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/3rdPartyApps > > > > > > > > > > Currently there's a policy from the Council (nee Board) on third party > > > > > repos here: > > > > > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy > > > > > > > > > > This policy doesn't address one of the problems I believe we're trying > > > > > to solve in software -- making developer access to non-libre (but > > > > > legally OK) tools on Fedora less convoluted and burdensome. > > > > > > > > > > So there's not just the question of implementation and curation, but > > > > > also getting a policy change approved by the Council. > > > > > > > > > This would make more sense to me as a Change proposal, with all the > > process > > > > and publicity that comes with that. A change in Fedora like this is > > much > > > > greater than the actual implementation details; treating it like a minor > > > > gnome-software feature add isn't representative of the impact on the > > > > project. > > > > > > Except the Change process is focused on sorting out changes that make > > > more than the owner do work to integrate, vs. those that don't. I > > > think calling this a Change actually demote this to a purely technical > > > decision, and I don't want to see it treated that way. So I think > > > your suggestion achieves the opposite of what you intend. > > > > "Demotion" sounds like we might be on the same page about impact, at least > > :) The Change process is technically focused, but it's still *the* process > > for major feature changes to get community review. These changes are > > almost entirely technical in nature, but FYI-type changes for marketing and > > documentation purposes happen too. Participation in the process would > > still allow for policy review, community feedback, coordination with other > > groups, and maybe even stretch the Change process itself to accommodate > > less technical proposals. > > That's completely correct, but without policy the technical feature > isn't going to have any impact AFAICT. This was a bit perfunctory, and I should have said I'm not violently opposed to filing a late Change. I can see how the Change is still helpful as part of a larger effort. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
