8:02 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:56:52AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> In going through the project structure wiki, I've come across a thing
> I've always thought a little funny. Fedora Project is an umbrella term,
> and underneath that, we have an official thing called a ... Project.
> Does anyone object to consistently referring to these as, instead,
> Subprojects?
>
> Additionally, while <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Defining_projects>
> has a formal procedure for these subprojects, we haven't particularly
> followed up on things like "Projects at this stage are expected to
> provide regular progress reports and to maintain an active state." As
> we were talking about having some of the Council meetings being
> reporting-focused, I think this might be a natural fit for bringing
> reality in line with the documentation.
>
> On the other hand, the section on SIGs focuses on the path to becoming
> a full Project Project, while the praxis is really captured in the last
> sentences: "It is possible for SIGs to exist indefinitely in this
> manner if the contributors feel there is no need for official project
> status. Indeed, many SIGs are sufficiently narrow in focus that they do
> not require project status to fulfill their missions." Here, I think
> it'd be better to rewrite this to put the SIGs-as-they-are aspect first
> and the incubator possibility as second.
>
> And then, of course, there's no mention of the Fedora.next structure
> here at all. The Working Groups we established are in many ways
> effectively each Subprojects (and the standards they're meant to be
> held to are similar); should they be considered as part of that, or as
> something distinct?
My recollection is that page is extremely old. I would argue it's
also not extremely useful because it simply formalizes common sense.
It also adds a level of bureaucracy to initiatives contributors ought
to feel free to start at any time. When I read this page it fills me
with ennui. I guess what I'm advocating is to not take every wiki
page hanging around for 7+ years as de facto necessary to carry
forward. :-)
I agree.
josh