@FESCO: EPEL Steering Committee's mandate is expiring -- how to move on?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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

[Josh Boyer]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:42:11 +0200
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 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

[Karsten Wade]

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
-- 
        Karsten Wade              ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
    quaid.fedorapeople.org        |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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

[Dennis Gilmore]

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