Openness: Apache as a guiding model (was Re: GFS removed??? )

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:23:20AM +1100, Colin Charles wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 20:12 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > For one I fail to see any connection of the issues at hand (GFS kernel
> > modules) with extras, so forcing people to contribute to extras just
> > because they want to contribute to FC/RHEL seems to be very wrong.
> 
> You mentioned kernel module packaging, and a post was referenced that
> was stuck on fedora-maintainers. You complained that this wasn't exactly
> a very open way of doing things
> 
> Jef mentioned becoming an Extras packager, so that you get on the
> fedora-maintainers list. And now you fail to see the connection?

Yes, because this is not a subject to be discussed on a closed
list. It certainly affects more than extras, core and rhel. In fact
this discussion is more about ISVs like the dozens of 3rd party repos
and driver packagers.

> >From the fedora-maintainers listinfo page:
> "This is the list for maintainers of packages in Fedora Core and Fedora
> Extras. Subscription to this list is contingent on one of these two
> criteria."
> 
> So, if you get involved with the process, you get on the list.

I'm not talking about maintaining any specific package, this is about
infrastructure and naming/versioning schemes.

> Otherwise, following the discussion is still possible, thanks to fedora-
> maintainers-readonly
> 
> Now what's incredibly unfair with getting involved with the process to
> contribute to The Fedora Project? No one's forcing you to contribute to
> Extras; you just have to meet one of the two criteria

AFAIK a signed agreement is needed.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20050317/41fa65ac/attachment-0002.bin