proposal to put env-and-stacks on hold

[Matthew Miller]

Hey everyone! Please see

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...

and

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization,_Prototype_P...

As part of this Objective update, we're recommending rolling the Base
WG and some of what Env & Stacks does and has done into a new "Modules
Working Group". Since interest here has sort of wound down (including
not enough volunteers for an election), this seems like a logical step.
However, it's definitely open to feedback.

I'm thinking we will look at taking the WG off ice again once we get to
the point of looking at including non-RPM content in Fedora.

(In a better way than http://www.xkcd.com/1654/ ).

[Nick Coghlan]

On 13 March 2016 at 00:55, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> Hey everyone! Please see
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>
> and
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization,_Prototype_P...
>
> As part of this Objective update, we're recommending rolling the Base
> WG and some of what Env & Stacks does and has done into a new "Modules
> Working Group". Since interest here has sort of wound down (including
> not enough volunteers for an election), this seems like a logical step.
> However, it's definitely open to feedback.

Logistically, it seems to me a hybrid between the two approaches
suggested in the wiki might be the way to go:

* Recharter the Base WG (in the near term) to define both the base
module *and* the modularisation architecture
* Mothball Envs & Stacks for now
* In a later phase, task the Base WG to come up with a new charter for
a rebooted Envs & Stacks WG to figure out how to sustainably permit
direct use of content in upstream formats as part of distro modules

The only real difference from what's currently in the wiki is that the
Base WG *is* the Modularisation WG, rather than setting up a new
mailing list etc, only to have to revert back to using the Base WG
mailing lists at some point in the future. (This also makes the
history easier to track, especially once hubs.fedoraproject.org comes
along - it will all be there in the Base WG archives, rather than
having a gap of a few months where the work happened somewhere else)

In people terms, we'd presumably see some Envs & Stacks folks look to
join the Base WG for a time, but then likely move away again once Envs
& Stacks is rechartered.

Cheers,
Nick.

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 01:49:11AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> The only real difference from what's currently in the wiki is that the
> Base WG *is* the Modularisation WG, rather than setting up a new
> mailing list etc, only to have to revert back to using the Base WG
> mailing lists at some point in the future. (This also makes the

Well, there is no separate base WG list -- they decided originally to
just use devel. That might be part of the reason it trailed off... I'm
kind of torn, because mailing list proliferation is also a problem.

I don't think we would want to revert back to Base WG in the future, in
any case. Modules would be an ongoing WG. We could just call it "Base",
except that seems confusing with the desired ongoing task of working on
guidelines, processes, and tools for _non_-base modules. That task
*could* go to Env & Stacks (which is basically the alternative
proposal), but a) it doesn't necessarily have strong correlation to
other things we want to do in the space implied by the name
"environments & stacks" and b) there's a good argument that every WG
should have a concrete, regular deliverable to focus activity, and I'm
not sure what that'd be.

[Nick Coghlan]

On 13 March 2016 at 04:37, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 01:49:11AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > The only real difference from what's currently in the wiki is that the
> > Base WG *is* the Modularisation WG, rather than setting up a new
> > mailing list etc, only to have to revert back to using the Base WG
> > mailing lists at some point in the future. (This also makes the
>
> Well, there is no separate base WG list -- they decided originally to
> just use devel. That might be part of the reason it trailed off... I'm
> kind of torn, because mailing list proliferation is also a problem.

Ah, I didn't know that. In that case, I'm a plain +1 for the proposal
- a Modularisation WG that defines both the Base module and oversees
policies for the modularisation tech used by other WGs makes a lot of
sense.
> I don't think we would want to revert back to Base WG in the future, in
> any case. Modules would be an ongoing WG. We could just call it "Base",
> except that seems confusing with the desired ongoing task of working on
> guidelines, processes, and tools for _non_-base modules. That task
> *could* go to Env & Stacks (which is basically the alternative
> proposal), but a) it doesn't necessarily have strong correlation to
> other things we want to do in the space implied by the name
> "environments & stacks" and b) there's a good argument that every WG
> should have a concrete, regular deliverable to focus activity, and I'm
> not sure what that'd be.

Yeah, I agree with that - I think lack of a concrete "thing we do" was
the reason E&S ended up drifting the first time around, since all the
ideas we came up with we ended up either deciding weren't a good
approach (e.g. the original Software Component Pipeline architecture),
or else decided to pursue a different way (e.g. Software Collections
as a CentOS SIG, the container development experience being adopted
wholesale from Project Atomic as an upstream).

In the case of E&S, I suspect our "thing we do" may end up being
related to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Projects/PackageReviewProcessR...
rather than delivering a product per se, but in the grand tradition of
open source, the order for that should probably be "build things
first, sort out the governance details later" :)

Cheers,
Nick.

[Honza Horak]

On 03/12/2016 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Hey everyone! Please see
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>
> and
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization,_Prototype_P...
>
> As part of this Objective update, we're recommending rolling the Base
> WG and some of what Env & Stacks does and has done into a new "Modules
> Working Group". Since interest here has sort of wound down (including
> not enough volunteers for an election), this seems like a logical step.
> However, it's definitely open to feedback.

Thank Matt, I think this is a good thing to do now.

I'd like to encourage all the former and current "members" to comment as 
well and ideally join the Modularization effort.

Honza

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 07:23:59PM +0100, Honza Horak wrote:
> > As part of this Objective update, we're recommending rolling the Base
> > WG and some of what Env & Stacks does and has done into a new "Modules
> > Working Group". Since interest here has sort of wound down (including
> > not enough volunteers for an election), this seems like a logical step.
> > However, it's definitely open to feedback.
>
> Thank Matt, I think this is a good thing to do now.
> I'd like to encourage all the former and current "members" to
> comment as well and ideally join the Modularization effort.

Cool. The council in general liked the idea, so, looks like we're
moving in this direction.

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- Original Message -----
> On 03/12/2016 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Hey everyone! Please see
> >
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
> >
> > and
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization,_Prototype_P...
> >
> > As part of this Objective update, we're recommending rolling the Base
> > WG and some of what Env & Stacks does and has done into a new "Modules
> > Working Group". Since interest here has sort of wound down (including
> > not enough volunteers for an election), this seems like a logical step.
> > However, it's definitely open to feedback.
>
> Thank Matt, I think this is a good thing to do now.

+1. Thanks, Matt.
> I'd like to encourage all the former and current "members" to comment as
> well and ideally join the Modularization effort.
>
> Honza