KB, let's see whether we can get any more feedback on this thread. I will pick this up after the board meeting and we can discuss some more stuff at FOSDEM too. I don't have a problem just formalizing Xen4CentOS as it is : I just wanted to raise the question, as now is probably the right time to verify assumptions. Lars 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. > >> 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 ). > >> Also, there would probably be practical issues on list naming, etc. >> (Xen4CentOS is merged with CentOS-virt from a list perspective). I don't >> have an issue with the status quo, but it may be cleaner for CentOS in >> the long run if there was a clear SIG to list mapping. > This came up recently in other conversations as well, the thinking was > that as a sig matures and has community traction we can split lists away > to be more sig focused. I'd imagine the entire Cloud / virt / hypervisor > SIGs could start from the centos-virt list as homebase and then branch > out. Having said that, most of the content on the centos-virt list at > the moment IS xen specific. > > regards, >