draft proposal for large additions of code into Fedora

[Jeremy Katz]

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:58 -0500, Max Spevack wrote: 
> We go back in time to the day when Red Hat acquired the Directory Server 
> product from Netscape.  Red Hat's intention was to (1) open source all 
> the code and (2) create the Fedora directory server.
> 
> There wasn't really any guideline in place for any of that.  Things have 
> turned out ok a few years later, but we should try to learn from the 
> past.

Honestly, I stand by what I thought at the time -- branding the
Directory Server as Fedora wasn't the best idea.  It's somewhat (but not
really, because DS has a pretty low awareness level) confused the
"Fedora as an OS" message.  I think it's also had a negative impact on
FDS being included in other distros, although that's harder to verify.

Also, given Fedora's trademark guidelines, it's a little funky having
some random software project named Fedora Foo.  I'm not really sure how
it starts to factor in when people start patching, etc. 

But if we ignore that and just go with the questions...  :-)

> 1.  The upstream should be somewhere public (Sourceforge, Fedora Hosted, 
> etc.)

Fedora Hosted (or, more accurately, hosted on Fedora infrastructure)

> 2.  All the code is under a license that is Fedora-compliant.

This one's a no-brainer

> 3.  There is a public roadmap showing the packaging strategy and how 
> that code will be brought into Koji and the Fedora repositories.

I'm less convinced this would be a real requirement, but it'd be a nice
to have

> 4.  The maintainers of the code have Fedora accounts.

Or are willing to get one.  Since all access to source hosting is
controlled via Fedora accounts

> 5.  The Board says yes (to allowing something to have the Fedora name).

Obviously. 

Jeremy