On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus(a)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