@FESCO: EPEL Steering Committee's mandate is expiring -- how to move on?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 28.08.2007 05:57, Karsten Wade wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-08-26 at 15:42 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
>> So if you are a EPEL contributor: what do you want? Do you want to elect
>> a EPEL Steering Committee? Do you want a bigger or a smaller one? Do you
>> want to get rid of it?
> I'll let my man Chuck D

/me had to visit wikipedia at this point

> speak for me:
> "Power to the people with no delay."
> 
> Fedora is evolving, and where?  Steering committees don't seem fit the
> need like they did before.

Agreed, but now and then they (or something like a Steering Committee)
are still needed afaics. Especially in EPEL we need some group to send a
"This is the direction" signal, as some people want a "Stable EPEL, with
a update style similar t othe one from RHEL" while others want a "Extras
like, always rolling, always new and shiny" style. Mixing the two models
would afaics the worst, so someone needs to pick the site, even if some
people feel pissed of.

> I like a bit of how Mike is organizing F-Infra,

/me doesn't follow that closely

> around functional teams
> that operate semi-autonomously, and report back to each other.

My experiences with "report back to each other" are not the best, but in
general: agreed

>  EPEL
> seems like it could follow a similar model.  Multiple groupings loosely
> coupled as a SIG, meeting once a week to be sure the bearings are
> rolling smoothly.
>
> To get there, I think we evolve.  As you suggest, lower the influence,
> role, or meaning of the steering committee.  Try to get some functional
> leaders to focus their contributions over certain areas.  Add a
> sponsorship methodology so people can help in these functional areas,
> gaining access as they merit, etc.

Sounds good.

> [...]

CU
knurd