On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:06 PM David Kaufmann <astra@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:38:16PM +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> The decision is made and we are proceeding to engage with Gitlab and
> unfortunately that won't be reversed as a decision.
I haven't expected this situation, so I've read up a bit on the whole
thing.
>From the outside it looks that the CPE team is trying since about a year
to get rid of as many services as possible, due to having not enough
resources to handle all. (I've only been looking at devel@ and blog
posts, there is not much else I could find about the CPE team)
We are trying to reduce the total ownership of the team to allow us to provide value on initiatives that are requested of us by our stakeholders.
The problem I think I see is, that there seems to be no option of giving
away responsibilities - the only advances I see are either "we'll
replace this with something we think is easier" or "lets turn it off".
I see one exception: Fedocal, where this list has been asked, if someone
wants to take over. Unfortunately that seems to be stuck due to
bureaucracy.
Unfortunately GDPR means we cannot give away application data, the applications themselves are free and open for the community to take and standup and offer to the community at large.
What I don't understand is, why a decision this big is not taken by
FESCo (or Council) and the CentOS Governing Board itself.
Neither run the git forge, CPE run it and we asked both Communities for input as to what our next steps should be.
After all in the Blogpost about how the CPE team is planning to do
things[1], it is stated:
"Our intention is to run all of the apps through the Fedora Council
first, in case the Council prefers any specific alternatives to a
particular service or app."
And we done that and shared intentions around Pagure (and several other apps) and in the case of Pagure it led to a requirements gathering exercise to decide on the appropriate direction to take.
(I'm also not sure why the article states the Council directly, and not
FESCo)
We engage with Council who in turn may decide to engage with other groups including FESCo
It sure feels like the CPE is not bound by either FESCo, CentOS
Governing Board or Fedora Council - this whole thing feels quite
arbitrary.
We take their input and guidance very seriously and they guide and shape our backlog of initiatives to work on.
Maybe it would be wiser to consider this as a formal error and
either re-do the decision process or hand the decision off to the Fedora
Council and the CentOS Governing Board (maybe as a joint decision?)
Ultimately CPE have to run the application, so if your scenario is to come to pass, both Fedora Council and CentOS Board will need to invest time and resourcing into the running and maintenance of a Git forge solution. They are also not the only stakeholders here.
[1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/application-service-categories-and-community-handoff/
All the best,
David
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Leigh Griffin
Engineering Manager
Communications House
Cork Road, Waterford City
lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx
M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
