Hi all!
The EPEL Steering Committee's mandate for leading EPEL was time-limited by FESCo until end of September this year. Well, we are getting closer to that date now, so we IMHO should start to discuss how to move on.
So if you are a EPEL contributor: what do you want? Do you want to elect a EPEL Steering Committee? Do you want a bigger or a smaller one? Do you want to get rid of it?
If you are a member of the new FESCo: What do you guys want? Just extend the mandate by another six months or maybe a whole year? Or get rid or EPEL and make it a real project independently running and managed from FESCo (which it does mostly already)?
/me put EPEL Steering Committee Chair hat aside now and expresses his own opinions on the questions from above
- I'm fine with having a election of the Steering Committee, but it IMHO doesn't make much sense -- it's likely that the number of candidates is much bigger then the seats (just as it was during the FESCo election).
- the size is fine; if people want to get more involved then the EPEL Steering Committee IMHO should dynamically adjust it's own size and get more people aboard, if those people want to get involved and are active on the list and in the meetings
- as much as I'd like to get rid of the Steering Committee -- it or something like it is needed to coordinate the work, as otherwise chaos would arise. But we IMHO nevertheless should try to lower the influence of the EPEL Steering Committee and try to get more work done by people who want something done, even if they are not in the Steering Committee.
- I think FESCo should extend the mandate by one year. Then we can discuss again if it makes sense to make EPEL a real project that reports directly to the Board and not to FESCo.
CU knurd
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:42:11 +0200 Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
Hi all!
The EPEL Steering Committee's mandate for leading EPEL was time-limited by FESCo until end of September this year. Well, we are getting closer to that date now, so we IMHO should start to discuss how to move on.
So if you are a EPEL contributor: what do you want? Do you want to elect a EPEL Steering Committee? Do you want a bigger or a smaller one? Do you want to get rid of it?
If you are a member of the new FESCo: What do you guys want? Just extend the mandate by another six months or maybe a whole year? Or get rid or EPEL and make it a real project independently running and managed from FESCo (which it does mostly already)?
My opinion: extend the mandate by a year. I prefer this over making it an independent project at the moment because I don't see much benefit in making it a completely separate project, and I would like to see the commonality between Fedora and EPEL continue.
Or, in other words, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
NOTE: The above is solely my opinion. I do not speak for FESCo, or Fedora, or EPEL, or your mom.
josh
On Sun, 2007-08-26 at 15:42 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
So if you are a EPEL contributor: what do you want? Do you want to elect a EPEL Steering Committee? Do you want a bigger or a smaller one? Do you want to get rid of it?
I'll let my man Chuck D speak for me:
"Power to the people with no delay."
Fedora is evolving, and where? Steering committees don't seem fit the need like they did before.
I like a bit of how Mike is organizing F-Infra, around functional teams that operate semi-autonomously, and report back to each other. EPEL seems like it could follow a similar model. Multiple groupings loosely coupled as a SIG, meeting once a week to be sure the bearings are rolling smoothly.
To get there, I think we evolve. As you suggest, lower the influence, role, or meaning of the steering committee. Try to get some functional leaders to focus their contributions over certain areas. Add a sponsorship methodology so people can help in these functional areas, gaining access as they merit, etc.
The more technical the Fedora group, the less formal structure I think it should have.
- Karsten
On 28.08.2007 05:57, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Sun, 2007-08-26 at 15:42 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
So if you are a EPEL contributor: what do you want? Do you want to elect a EPEL Steering Committee? Do you want a bigger or a smaller one? Do you want to get rid of it?
I'll let my man Chuck D
/me had to visit wikipedia at this point
speak for me: "Power to the people with no delay."
Fedora is evolving, and where? Steering committees don't seem fit the need like they did before.
Agreed, but now and then they (or something like a Steering Committee) are still needed afaics. Especially in EPEL we need some group to send a "This is the direction" signal, as some people want a "Stable EPEL, with a update style similar t othe one from RHEL" while others want a "Extras like, always rolling, always new and shiny" style. Mixing the two models would afaics the worst, so someone needs to pick the site, even if some people feel pissed of.
I like a bit of how Mike is organizing F-Infra,
/me doesn't follow that closely
around functional teams that operate semi-autonomously, and report back to each other.
My experiences with "report back to each other" are not the best, but in general: agreed
EPEL seems like it could follow a similar model. Multiple groupings loosely coupled as a SIG, meeting once a week to be sure the bearings are rolling smoothly.
To get there, I think we evolve. As you suggest, lower the influence, role, or meaning of the steering committee. Try to get some functional leaders to focus their contributions over certain areas. Add a sponsorship methodology so people can help in these functional areas, gaining access as they merit, etc.
Sounds good.
[...]
CU knurd
On Tuesday 28 August 2007 1:35:20 pm Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 28.08.2007 05:57, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Sun, 2007-08-26 at 15:42 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
So if you are a EPEL contributor: what do you want? Do you want to elect a EPEL Steering Committee? Do you want a bigger or a smaller one? Do you want to get rid of it?
I'll let my man Chuck D
/me had to visit wikipedia at this point
speak for me: "Power to the people with no delay."
Fedora is evolving, and where? Steering committees don't seem fit the need like they did before.
Agreed, but now and then they (or something like a Steering Committee) are still needed afaics. Especially in EPEL we need some group to send a "This is the direction" signal, as some people want a "Stable EPEL, with a update style similar t othe one from RHEL" while others want a "Extras like, always rolling, always new and shiny" style. Mixing the two models would afaics the worst, so someone needs to pick the site, even if some people feel pissed of.
right now you get extras type rolling release by enabling testing and stable by not. both are covered just fine :)
at least this is my take on it
Dennis
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Josh Boyer -
Karsten Wade -
Thorsten Leemhuis