Governance vs. Charter

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 11/11/13 01:40, Tadej Janež wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 10:31 -0500, John Dulaney wrote:
>>>
>>> (My personal leaning at the moment -- Do not take on the approval of
>>> new SCLs. Do implement term limits).
>>> -Toshio
>>
>> I am surely +1 on not taking on approving SCLs.
>
> My view is more along these lines: SCLs are something that would have
> been developed/implemented as part of our WG to enable co-existence of
> otherwise incompatible software stacks, if our WG existed back then.
> I'm not sure about approving/rejecting individual SCLs... it seems
> similar to FPC approving/rejecting individual rpm packages?
>
> Tadej
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-and-stacks mailing list
> env-and-stacks at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
>
FPC doesn't approve rpm, that's done in package review process. 
Neverthless I thought SIG and WG should have more power. I don't see a 
reason, why eg. Ruby SIG shouldn't say how they wish to maintain their 
packages, because they are doing the work. There should be only some 
basic boundaries, which must be followed by all SIGs. Our guidelines are 
now so long, they are intimidating people. We should split them into 
guidelines (must be done) and best practices (howto, should be done).
My opinion on SCL is clear. I see as impossible to maintain content for 
collections for internal Red Hat products and Fedora and EPEL if 
guidelines for Fedora SCLs are so much different. It might happen that 
FPC will approve the best version of SCL from their point of view, but 
there will be no-one to do them for Fedora.
Personally, I'd rather discuss automatization of packaging and other 
areas like Formulas, where is more space for work.

Marcela