On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:51:31 +0000 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current > package ownership model? > > Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence > would make every contributor an "proven packager"? I'm not sure it would be. > Would it be viable to move to something like language SIG based > ownership of packages? Well, if we did that we would need to revamp SIGs I suppose. We would need to make sure that there was some kind of SIG that covered all packages so people would know who to talk with. Also, currently some SIGs are very active and some really aren't at all. Also, a number of SIGs overlap. > As in lower the barrier of entry of contributor without the need and > or introduction of an package or any sponsorship and have them > assigned to relevant SIG based on language they either know or want > to learn. ( not necessarly having to tie packaging with code > contribution ). One thing thats worth noting here is: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Become_a_co-maintainer As another avenue to becoming a packager. > The governing body of the SIG would in essence be the once that would > be responsible for the components. > > So as an example a indvidual skilled in Java who would want to join > the project would automatically be assigned to the java SIG which in > turn would be assigned and managing all Java related components then > the Java SIG based on what ever process/workflow they have decided > would assign to that individual what ever task is needed at current > times prioritized by the knowledge and resource they posses. > > So basically the barrier of entry is no higher than what the > individual wants to learn or knows already as in.. > > Do you know or want to learn python. Join the python SIG etc... > > Do you want to learn distribution packaging join the Packaging SIG Good example. How do we handle overlaps here? Someone wishes to help with general packaging things, so they need to update the java package guidelines and fix those packages. Do they join the Packaging SIG? Java sig? both? > Or the individual would learn how to package components relevant to > the SIG he just joined > > Thoughts? > > Far off and totally crazy, you are mad! > > What meds are you on can I have some? > > The SIG approach is something that actually might work... I'm not convinced it would, without changing how our sigs are setup. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
