how to govern and manage the new combined repository

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Bill Nottingham schrieb:
> Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said: 

> Q: What are we trying to accomplish?
> A: To enable people to do Cool Stuff with Fedora. To enable people
>    to make Fedora better.

+1


> Q: How do we best accomplish this?
> A: Empower people, and get out of their way.

Well, your have a point, but I don't agree fully. One reasons for it: A
clear infrastructure will actually help getting the community involved.
Otherwise some contributors might say "I did not know where to ask to
get involved, thus I move along to something else" (see the recent
discussion about fedora-desktop on fedora-devel -- that shows the
problem nicely ). That's what I'd like to avoid.

> So, what sort of structure should we have to enact this?
> 
> On top is the Fedora board - the directing organization, the big
> picture thinkers, and the resolution point of last resort.

+1

> Under them are various subprojects - we have the infrastructure
> project, the docs project, etc. So, what new structures do we
> *need*?

Hear I to disagree. I think it does not work well if we have to much
projects on the same level if they have to interact a lot (and those two
your porpose have to interact a lot).

An reasons for my opinion: the communication and "who does foo" between
the Packaging Committee and FESCo sometimes sucked (the recent
"conflicts" issue is a good example). Having something like a FTC
(Fedora Technical Committee) at the top might help as it can say "Either
you work out something until X or we do it, as we and/or group 'b' need
a solution *really soon*".

> 1) Fedora Packaging Project (or committee, or what have you)
> 
> Charter:
> - set packaging standards
> - set packager standards
> - enforce those standards
> - encourage new contributors/contributions

I like the parts to have one committee that takes care of both packaging
standards and enforcing them..

> Structure? I'm of the opinion that it doesn't really matter - find
> people willing to do the work, *and do it*. But I could certainly
> see how the current FESCo model can work here, especially since
> FESCo handles most (if not all) of these areas.

Well,

> - set packaging standards
> - set packager standards

are the job of the Packaging Committee.

> 2) Fedora Release Team
> 
> Charter:
> - defines the schedule
> - defines the feature list (?)
> - enforces the freezes

I think that could lead to problems if this group handles the freezes if
all the other repo work falls into the area of group "1"

> - spins such releases that we see fit (pushes the button, pushes
>   to site, etc.)
> 
> Structure? [...]

See above.

Just my 2 cent .

CU
thl