[CentOS-devel] CentOS Stream Feature Request SIG Proposal

Sat Apr 10 09:39:25 UTC 2021
Tim Tjernagel <tjernageltim at gmail.com>


On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 7:11 PM Josh Boyer <jwboyer at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:07 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 05:37:52PM +0100, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> > > The purpose of this SIG will be to serve as a gate for feature requests
> > > that are first developed in CentOS Stream from contributors who wish to
> > > request these features to be included in future RHEL releases and are
> then
> > > filed in bugzilla. The SIGs overall goal is to make sure that features
> > > which have been filed and have technical merit are triaged internally
> to
> > > the correct venue for further review and development. The SIG will take
> >
> > This seems similar to one of the responsibilities of Fedora's "FESCo"
> > ("Fedora Engineering Steering Committee") as part of our Change process.
> > (See
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_policy/)
> >
> > I think it'd be nice to share structure and concepts (if not outright
> > process) as much as possible in areas like this -- it avoids duplicating
> > work, makes it easier for people working in both projects, and can help
> > actual work move back and forth as appropriate.
> Note, the description says "...feature *requests* that are first
> developed in...", not "...features that are first developed in...".
> Perhaps otherwise worded as "...feature requests that are drafted by
> the CentOS Stream contributors...".
> With that in mind, I'd be careful drawing analogies to FESCo.  Fedora
> has a lot of freedom in the changes it can make.  FESCo is a community
> body that acts as an arbiter for Fedora direction overall, and they
> tend to do a good job of it.  CentOS Stream is more tightly bound to
> the direction of RHEL, which absolutely needs community input but this
> group isn't necessarily setting direction there.
> Brian's other reply captures it well.  There will be requests that the
> community wishes to see, sometimes in the content of the OS itself,
> and sometimes outside of it.  Right now, we lack a group that is
> paying attention at a higher level to help shepherd those to the
> appropriate place and carry them into Red Hat as needed.  The group
> will have less direct control and act more in an advocacy capacity for
> these ideas, but without it we stand a high chance of really great
> ideas being missed simply because of so much going on.
> > I can imagine in some cases the correct venue for a feature will be : get
> > this upstream in Fedora first. Or maybe there will be some changes
> proposed
> > in Fedora where the answer will be the reverse. Either way, a shared
> > approach on either side would be nice.
> Yep, you're indeed correct.  Sometimes something will need to happen
> in Fedora first, or EPEL, or perhaps a SIG, etc.  The Fedora Change
> process is indeed very similar.  The groups working with them are
> slightly different.
> > Thus ends the not-bikeshedding part of this message. The bikeshedding
> part
> > is: I wonder if "SIG" is the right name / structure for this group? SIGs
> > generally are focused on more specific areas, right, and this is more
> broad.
> > So, where I'm going with this is... "CentOS Stream Feature Steering
> > Committee"?
> I like my bikesheds to represent exactly what they're for, but I am
> terrible at naming.
> josh
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20210410/2a62c08e/attachment-0003.html>