On 11/22/2011 06:46 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > 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. Yup moving to SIG based/Group ownership based approach would certainly require revamping their current status. > >> 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. Cant these things to be separately completely as in the requirement to become "packager" to be able to contribute to a package and the need for sponsor ship be dropped in the process. Atleast the one way as I see it is to move the SIG/Group based ownerships of components anykind of barrier of entry would be removed for participation and if/when the SIG/Group deems the individual ready it will handle granting him any permissions the individual might lack over the packages they oversee. > >> 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? Y Would we need to as in would not an individual be able to participate in as many SIG's/Groups as he wants too? > 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? Yeah why not joining both however he ofcourse would need to follow anykind of packaging standards the Java SIG ( Or any SIG/Group he might be a part of ) would have should that package be overseed by the Java SiG ( Or any relevant SIG/Group he might be a part of ), >> 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. That ofcourse might need some rethinking. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
