Third party repos

[Pete Travis]

On Feb 26, 2015 1:59 PM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:37:55AM -0700, Pete Travis wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 2015 6:57 AM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I wanted to resurface the third party repository topic before we get
> > > to next week's meeting.  Currently we have the following page drafted
> > > that discusses the new disabled repo feature currently in Fedora 22
> > > Workstation:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/3rdPartyApps
> > >
> > > Currently there's a policy from the Council (nee Board) on third party
> > > repos here:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy
> > >
> > > This policy doesn't address one of the problems I believe we're trying
> > > to solve in software -- making developer access to non-libre (but
> > > legally OK) tools on Fedora less convoluted and burdensome.
> > >
> > > So there's not just the question of implementation and curation, but
> > > also getting a policy change approved by the Council.
> > >
> > This would make more sense to me as a Change proposal, with all the
process
> > and publicity that comes with that.  A change in Fedora like this is
much
> > greater than the actual implementation details; treating it like a minor
> > gnome-software feature add isn't representative of the impact on the
> > project.
>
> Except the Change process is focused on sorting out changes that make
> more than the owner do work to integrate, vs. those that don't.  I
> think calling this a Change actually demote this to a purely technical
> decision, and I don't want to see it treated that way.  So I think
> your suggestion achieves the opposite of what you intend.
>
> --
> Paul W. Frields

"Demotion" sounds like we might be on the same page about impact, at least
:)  The Change process is technically focused, but it's still *the* process
for major feature changes to get community review.  These changes are
almost entirely technical in nature, but FYI-type changes for marketing and
documentation purposes happen too.  Participation in the process would
still allow for policy review, community feedback,  coordination with other
groups, and maybe even stretch the Change process itself to accommodate
less technical proposals.

--Pete
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/attachments/20150226/319b549f/attachment.html>