----- Original Message ----- > > SIG-centric > > --- > > * SIGs will form "bubbles" within this ring, possibly varying from > > packaging guidelines in order to meet needs. > > * Change management will also be SIG-focused. > > > > Fedora already largely works this way. We just need more of it. If we > > can be more flexible about what it means to participate in Fedora, we > > can increase the intersection with upstream communities. > > Do we need a more formal definition of a SIG? Right now it's... anyone > who calls themselves that. > > How do we handle resources for these Rings? Resources were the first thing that came to my mind when I read this - I'm definitely fan of well defined "core" Fedora, even in the meaning of meta distribution which coudl be used for other project. It would be worth to implement it and we should be able to implement this within Fedora. But with my current job hat on - I can't imagine implementing the whole proposal to create a similar experience we do today - products. Most of SIGs are one man show, even release engineering is mostly one man show, same for all other teams, Fedora QA is pretty big team compared to other Fedora teams but still - releasing even one kind of Fedora, with same release day, same lifecycle is a barely manageable without investments (aka more automation - not only for QA etc.). Same for development... I understand proposal as - this is the way how we can get more contributors, even from upstreams but it's the question if they would be interested in. Btw. I'm not saying it's impossible - but it could be pretty hard. Also we still don't have an answer for "what should be Fedora" and even now we have 100000 different and pretty conflicting visions ;-). Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
