---------------------+---------------------
Reporter: bex | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Resolution:
Keywords: |
---------------------+---------------------
Comment (by bex):
Replying to [comment:7 jwboyer]:
> Replying to [comment:5 bex]:
> > I understand your concerns Josh. I also was implying parts of your
points smooge. I am less concerned with FAS groups (though in some cases
they may be problematic) and I am not trying to strip anyone of a vote.
Rather, I am thinking of two goals:
> >
> > 1) Being able to point people toward groups working in Fedora
>
> That's orthogonal to any kind of "official" status. It's mostly on the
groups themselves to advertise, organize, and grow their SIG. Put another
way, if they are working on a particular area it should be fairly evident
they are doing so. If it isn't, then I would question how sustainable
their activities are.
Orthogonal maybe, but I think we need to consider how we are presenting
ourselves to the world, ala your wiki comment below. Other commenters
have mentioned "active" vs. "inactive" and that works great as well.
My goal is not control or centralization. My goal is to know that if I
wanted to talk to all of the groups that I could feel reasonably certain I
did so. It is highly likely that a group could exist that is very active
and who is doing a good job keeping their presence up to date, but who are
doing it only in channels related to their activity and where I have no
personal overlap.
> > 2) Determine who is allowed to ask for Budget, officially represent
us, etc. When we talked about opening up the budget process to try and
allow for greater input, I seem to recall there being a requirement that
you be a recognized sub-project.
>
> I don't recall that requirement, but I would suggest that anyone can ask
for budget. We reserve the right to tell anyone "no", including FESCo or
Edition workgroups. Clearly we're going to factor in the effort that has
already been done into those requests. What I would hate to have happen
is something truly innovative being killed because we denied the budget
needed to take it from niche to a spectacular success story for Fedora
simply because it wasn't "official".
I also don't want to see a group fail to know they can ask for budget
because they thought there was a process. This list represents a way to
keep a group on the radar.
> > The wiki hints at a process to become a SIG, etc. If we have this
kind of a process then it implies that some groups have completed it and
some groups are in process and others have not started. I think we just
need to bring some definition.
>
> Learn this now: THE WIKI IS FULL OF FORMER TRUTHS, HALF-TRUTHS, AND
LIES.
Saying this over and over again doesn't make it less true or less of a
problem. The inability to move forward with editing this information also
isn't making it less true or less of a problem.
> > Lastly, I would like to consider trying to codify this information
somewhere other than in the Wiki. It is a long term goal and a project I
am not even ready to outline as a request for comments yet.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing more about that.
It is a goal of mine to write it up after I tame the budget process.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/70#comment:10>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
No comments:
Post a Comment