fedora project projects

[Matthew Miller]

In going through the project structure wiki, I've come across a thing
I've always thought a little funny. Fedora Project is an umbrella term,
and underneath that, we have an official thing called a ... Project.
Does anyone object to consistently referring to these as, instead,
Subprojects?

Additionally, while <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Defining_projects>
has a formal procedure for these subprojects, we haven't particularly
followed up on things like "Projects at this stage are expected to
provide regular progress reports and to maintain an active state." As
we were talking about having some of the Council meetings being
reporting-focused, I think this might be a natural fit for bringing
reality in line with the documentation.

On the other hand, the section on SIGs focuses on the path to becoming
a full Project Project, while the praxis is really captured in the last
sentences: "It is possible for SIGs to exist indefinitely in this
manner if the contributors feel there is no need for official project
status. Indeed, many SIGs are sufficiently narrow in focus that they do
not require project status to fulfill their missions." Here, I think
it'd be better to rewrite this to put the SIGs-as-they-are aspect first
and the incubator possibility as second.

And then, of course, there's no mention of the Fedora.next structure
here at all. The Working Groups we established are in many ways
effectively each Subprojects (and the standards they're meant to be
held to are similar); should they be considered as part of that, or as
something distinct?

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader