Third party repos

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 04:52:03PM -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:17:06PM -0700, Pete Travis wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > "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.
> 
> That's completely correct, but without policy the technical feature
> isn't going to have any impact AFAICT.

This was a bit perfunctory, and I should have said I'm not violently
opposed to filing a late Change.  I can see how the Change is still
helpful as part of a larger effort.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
    The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com