[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Board Recap 2009-07-16 UTC 1600



On 07/17/2009 06:43 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:

> ** Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's objectives?

This is perhaps the key question to this whole conversation and I think
it is important to note here that the question on Fedora's audience
seems still open to the board.

http://lwn.net/Articles/341290/

There are atleast two users here claiming that it doesn't fit the Fedora
objectives and I think that is to a good extend, true.

The objectives however are not something written in stone nor is the
community around Fedora. The amount of occasions a similar idea or
proposal has been put forward suggests there there is definitely
community interest in this. I am not sure whether there is enough of a
interest in people volunteering to drive this proposal forward. There
are only a very small number of people signed up at

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Interested_People

I did not because it benefits me in any way but because I really do want
to understand what the work actually is over a period of time and see
for myself if the cost is worth the benefit. I suggest that the board
approve the infrastructure request and let the community succeed or fail
on its own goals rather than refuse to provide infrastructure and
therefore adding a very substantial barrier to entry for interested
contributors. The rise in interest in EPEL after the move to Koji and
Bodhi suggests that even a different infrastructure is a major barrier
even for seasoned contributors. If it was just pushing more updates in a
existing branch and if users can continue getting updates for a longer
time without doing anything at all, this proposal has a better chance of
succeeding.

Rahul


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]