Am Samstag, den 18.02.2006, 15:45 -0500 schrieb Warren Togami: > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > 3. we should let FEL define its own policies. Today we don't know the > > number of people interested in FEL and their level of involvement. It's > > useless to dictate rules to a team which is not assembled yet. People > > who want to do it should first go to 1. and create some form of entity > > I think it is entirely broken to "hand over" the entire Extras and > expect some other volunteer to take care of it. This will create a > guaranteed failure situation for a community group because the set of > packages is potentially infinite and the natural problem that security > is difficult to maintain with only volunteers (even Debian struggles). > It is a *fantasy* for maintainers to expect they hand over > responsibility to some theoretical entity and expect it to actually work. +1 >[...] > 1) Task: All new bug reports in Extras should go to a list > Timeframe: ASAP > > This easy change already discussed in FESCO would increase the chances > of new issues reported against Extras packages to be handled by somebody > in a timely manner. There currently isn't agreement whether we should > have this mail go to the existing fedora-extras-list and further > overload those subscribers, or create a new extras-bugs-list limited > only to people interested enough to subscribe. I am leaning towards the > latter. Me too. But I'm wondering bugzilla-spam should go; Maybe we even need three mailinglists: fedora-extras-list -> for discussions and questions regarding FE fedora-extras-reviews-list -> bugzilla spam from review bugs fedora-extras-bugs-list -> all other extras bugs > It is clear to me however that this is not a feasible long-term > solution. The amount of mail will never stop growing, and it will > become more and more detrimental over time for any person to attempt to > read everything. I think that we should always keep subscribing to a > bug list as an *option*, however we should move toward the next goal. The section "About OPEN-BUGS packages" in http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageStatus#head-b08e03806e3ec607e04e9dc478d2e97caed889f1 is a great help IMHO. We just need to start using and enhancing it. > 2) Task: All Packages in Core and Extras should officially have multiple > owners in the database > Timeframe: Early FC6 cycle [...] Nice idea. Related: We should have a policy that regulates when Fedora Extras packages should be allowed to touch packages that are owned by somebody else (in case of security fixes for example) > 3) Task: Organize formal security status tracking of Fedora Extras > similarly to how Core is tracked. > Timeframe: FC6 cycle > Who: ??? Yes, security is a hard problem for volunteers for many reasons... [...] A security SIG/Team/Task Force is already in the works. Still in the early planing stages. I asked Hans for a status update an hour ago. >[...] > === WARNING: PURELY THEORETICAL STUFF BELOW === > > 5) Task: Allow direct participation in Core from Fedora community > Timeframe: ??? Side note: openSuse plans to simplify participation to their "Core-Distro" afaik, too. It's high on their todo-list iirc. > 6) Legacy contribution goes directly into older Core > Timeframe: ??? [...] Don't forget "Updates build by 'Legacy' should be uploaded to the same place where Core updates from Red Hat were uploaded to before -> no yum re-configuration, no special 'legacy' repos for yum/pirut" > 7) Possibly Abolish "Legacy" name +1 > [...] Cu thl -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
