oK 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>