On 17/01/2014 17:07, Karanbir Singh wrote: > hi Lars, > > On 01/17/2014 12:45 PM, Lars Kurth wrote: >> congratulations on the RedHat/CentOS announcement. Sorry for responding >> so late on SIGs: I was in China until recently and had no time to follow >> up. There is definitely interest to continue the Xen (or Xen4CentOS) SIG >> within CentOS, building on the Xen4CentOS work of last year. I want to >> get the endorsement of the Xen Project Advisory Board for joining the >> SIG at next Tuesday's board meeting. This will give an application (if >> needed) extra weight. I don't expect any issues. > thanks, and let us know how that goes. That is approved. Although I have not had time to write up and post the meeting minutes >> 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? 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. Regards Lars