For the record, this is a topic that I'm tackling from a clean-sheet-of-paper position. I intend to complete a (non-binding) draft for review by a small number of folks, then with larger and larger circles, including fedora-devel-list, over the coming weeks. Disclaimer: while passionately supporting the idea of Fedora for a long time, I'm only just recently involved with it at the nuts-and-bolts level. I consider myself to be an intelligent newbie, not the grizzled, all-knowing wizard that my age or experience with open source might imply. You should assume that until I prove myself, stuff I say might as likely be overruled as adopted. Still, I think I can help. M On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 10:46, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:21:25 +0200, Phil Knirsch <pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > seth vidal wrote: > > And the point is, for a package that needs to be in our enterprise > > products, it is in the long run necessary that there is an internal Red > > Hat package maintainer for it. > > You bring up an interesting pedantic question of policy regarding > Fedora Extras moving forward.... > > Does everything that needs to be in the enterprise products need to be in Core? > Can't you as a red hat employee and maintainer of the enterprise > products maintain > this package as part of Fodora Extras? > > Keeping much if not all of the enterprise relevant packages maintained > by a red hat employee as part of fedora has its merits im sure, but > I'm not sure if keeping all the enterprise relevant packages inside > Core, is a good long term solution for the fedora project. So the > question isn't so much should the package maintainership be changed. > Instead its a question of can Red Hat maintained packages be moved out > of Core and maintained as part of Extras. > > -jef >
