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

Re: Plan for tomorrows (20070830) FESCO meeting

On 30.08.2007 10:43, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 07:31 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 29.08.2007 20:18, Brian Pepple wrote:
>>> /topic FESCO-Meeting -- Follow-up -- obsoleting kmod proposal:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal - dwmw2, f13,
>>> |DrJef|
>> Wow, lot's of words -- seems we are really on our way to "Bureaucratic 2.0".
> Ouch, that hurts :)

Well, it's not your fault. In fact it's likely even in parts more my
fault, because some of this and similar bureaucracy evolved when I was
FESCo's chair.

>> Well, as I'm one of those that was a major driver for kmod's in Fedora
>> Extras: +1 for the proposal. If anyone wonders why it gets my support:
>> it was something different when we had Core and Extras (that's the short
>> explanation, but I think it should make the biggest reason obvious).
>> Nevertheless some comments:
>> - if we are doing "Bureaucratic 2.0" then let's please do the easy steps
>> as well and discuss a proposal like this on the list properly for some
>> days(ยน) and don't try it in nearly hiding mode by just mention it in a
>> "Plan for tomorrows FESCO meeting" where it easily missed.
> We started off that way; the only reason it's on the wiki was because I
> was asked to put it there after the email discussion. See, for example,
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-kernel-list/2007-July/msg00087.html
> which was also on fedora-devel-list. Also a later thread on
> fedora-devel-list with the subject 'Kernel Modules in Fedora'.

Well, for me it boils down to this: this and similar documents is what
FESCo members which didn't participate in the earlier discussion will
read to come to a decision. Thus what is written in them and how it gets
written by the author (which of course has a opinion which again
influences how he writes the stuff) is really important, thus a public
review (just one or two days or time) for such kind of document is IMHO
strictly needed to give people with other opinions a chance to comment.

Don't take it as a offense or disagreement with the proposal --
remember, I gave my +1 to it ;-)

>> - (partly a question for the Packaging committee as well) The current
>> Kernel Module standard was not only meant for Fedora, but for RHEL also
>> and a suggested one for 3rd party Fedora-repos as well. Are those still
>> a goal? If not: will the stuff simply be removed from the Guidelines, to
>> make them easier to read?
> I think we could probably drop it completely, at least from the official
> guidelines. That doesn't mean the text has to be completely obliterated
> from the world, of course. If other people want to collaborate on a
> method for doing that kind of thing, I have no particular objection to
> letting them use the Fedora wiki for it. As long as we don't actually
> _ship_ any such abominations :)

Well, without shipping such abominations I'd say we have no real testbed
for testing improvements and changes to the standard. So maybe (I'm not
completely sure myself) it's really better kicked completely, and we
don't care about RHEL (or I work together with jcm on it and we search
for an testbed (or create one)).


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