On 02/10/2014 10:03 AM, Lars Kurth wrote: > That is approved. Although I have not had time to write up and post the > meeting minutes awesome! >>> The other question I have is whether we do need to re-apply >>> (http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup lists Xen4CentOS as a SIG >>> already) and what the format for an application would be other than >>> posting to this list. Maybe we ought to look at the naming of the SIG >>> and make it more generic to cover for future version changes in Xen as >>> well as targeting CentOS versions beyond CentOS 7 (which ought to be a >>> lot easier than CentOS 6 because we only need Xen and no custom kernel). >> imho, its worth going down the route of setting up a formal SIG in the >> present scope of things, although the code + content and release stuff >> is already out there in centos.org ( which might also make it a lot >> faster and easier, since we just need to realign the git repo and get >> some build metadata around it ). > OK. > > I guess the next step then is to work on a formal proposal for the > board. Is there a template or list of questions that need to be > answered? Is there something else we need to wait for? I will try and get that together today evening. > On the packaging/dependency between SIGs/variants side, the type of > challenges are probably quite similar to the ones in the storage SIG. > Maybe we can also move away from the custom kernel we had for > Xen4CentOS6 and see whether the the CentOS7 kernel may work better. right, and the layers of repo's is going to need resolving - things like xen and the storage components we'd want as low as possible so that as many people as possible can consume them from outside the xen repos. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc