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