[Fedora-spins] Spins

[Bryan Kearney]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:11:39PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
>> Mike McGrath wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>>> True that spins aren't the same as features, but they normally
>>>> require a feature page for tracking.  Part of the reason for this
>>>> is to make sure the spin gets promotion in the feature process.
>>>>
>>> I've looked at the spins sig page and I am uber confused.
>>>
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins
>>>
>>> links to
>>>
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JefSpaleta/SpinReleaseProcessProposal
>>>
>>> which really couldn't be a worse guide from a spin proposer
>>> perspective (it is the proposal for the sig itself to follow).  I
>>> think:
>>>
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Spins/SpinSubmissionProcess
>>>
>>> is the page the sig intends people to follow.  I've also come to
>>> find out there's a whole slew of options in spins hosting, just the
>>> ks for example can get approved for hosting but never built and
>>> distributed as an official fedora spin.
>>>
>>> That page does mention a feature page requirement but doesn't
>>> really talk about timelines nor expectations.
>>>
>>> 	-Mike
>> I think these are probably valid observations considering we met a
>> month ago and haven't done a specific follow-up on what was
>> discussed or still needs to be figured out.
>>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00087.html
> 
> This is really something that, at this point, should be well
> documented in the wiki and hooked from the main Spins SIG page.
> Having processes rely on knowledgeable individuals is not scalable, as
> we've found to our (unsurprised) dismay in Documentation.
> 
> Having the technical guidelines documented is a great step but there's
> more to do to prevent spin owner frustration.  Bryan Kearney went a
> good ways toward a more detailed document at:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkearney/ProposedSpinProcess
> 
> Are we waiting for the Spins SIG to find the next actions, and drive
> this to completion?  Or is this hanging elsewhere?

I think it just died because of $DAYJOB. Do folks want to get back 
together to chat? I think with the advent of the new remix mark it makes 
sense to discuss/amend the policy.

-- bk