On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > There are 2 reasons why I don't want to flesh it too much. One is > because I think it is an iterative process, we don't need much to start > and we'll see how it goes, and in the start it won't be public, only > something experimental. I've no problem with interested people making an experimental stab at this. if the intent is to have FESCo revisit this in like a year or something, try to setup the metrics or milestones now that will form the basis of that future progress review. I will say however, that if the initial mission and goals for a SIG are too ill-defined you may have a problem harnessing manpower and have everyone pulling the effort forward in a common direction. Just be wary of that. As you move forward and create a SIG, I'm going to need something concrete enough as a statement so when I'm talking to people "outside" about their interests I know whether or not to point them to this SIG as a place to dig in and help. The last thing I want to do is encourage people with dissimilar needs/interest to sit in a room together and have them fight with each other. > In fact I think that something that should be > discussed within the SIG is how hard we try to keep a possible > upgrade path toward the next RHEL/EPEL. That statement right there, is probably simultaneously the hardest and potentially rewarding objective that an extended update effort could attempt to achieve. And its a far different thing to state that as an objective to work towards over just saying maintainers can do whatever they want. But to do it well, would probably require a consensual understanding by Red Hat and the external community that such an upgrade path was a valuable thing to work towards together. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
