On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 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