On 18/05/2021 19.44, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 5/18/21 6:43 AM, Peter Georg wrote:
So in case there is any way to move this SIG proposal forward, or some other more suitable way (under the umbrella of centos-plus or some other SIG?) to provide such kmod packages, please let me know.
I'm not certain if this is what you are asking, but the way forward with the SIG proposal is to write a SIG proposal, and bring it to the Board of Directors.
Indeed it was not what I was initially asking for. However this answer of yours, and the one to redbaronbrowser later, caused me to take a step back re-think about how to approach this:
The possible SIG named "Stream Kernel SIG" discussed in this topic here has been initially brought up by redbaronbrowser and included 4 goals. I later proposed to add building kmods as a fifth goal. redbaronbrowser described his idea of a possible SIG in the inital post. However I'm not sure this qualifies as a proposal. In addition, as you mentioned, there are some open questions. I think these questions are mostly related to the initial goals #1, #3, and #4. IMHO some of these goals are not feasible within the scope of a SIG.
Hence I'm now thinking about splitting the fifth goal from this "Stream Kernel SIG" and write a proposal for a "kmods" SIG only containing this particular goal.
Whether one wants to add the second goal of redbaronbrowser's initial idea - building the CentOS Plus kernel - is a different question and imo up to the current devolpers/maintainers of kernel-plus. This can be discussed later.
Before I start writing a proposal for a "kmods SIG": Does this make sense to you?
The process is here: https://wiki.centos.org/SIGGuide#SIGGuide.2FSIGProcess.Proposal
A template is here: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/ProposalTemplate
A *great* example is here: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Hyperscale