[CentOS-devel] [EXT] Re: RFC: Stream Kernel SIG Proposal

Wed May 19 12:22:00 UTC 2021
Rich Bowen <rbowen at redhat.com>

On 5/19/21 6:17 AM, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:43 AM, Peter Georg <peter.georg at physik.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>> So in case there is any way to move this SIG proposal forward, or some
>> other more suitable way (under the umbrella of centos-plus or some other
>> SIG?) to provide such kmod packages, please let me know.
> Moving the SIG proposal forward requires a CentOS board member to sponsor the SIG.  Period.

Or an existing SIG chair. Or me. Related: We're in the process of 
rewriting/clarifying the SIG process documentation over the coming 
months, and that was why I sent the "SIG feedback" email 2 weeks ago.

But what's really lacking here is not a board sponsor, but an actual 
proposal. Someone needs to write a SIG proposal (as per my email 
yesterday) so that someone can step up to sponsor it.

> > I have not been able to get any board member to establish themselves as a sponsor which effectively vetos the SIG.  The purposal has been sitting for 3 months with no indication any sponsor will ever be stepping forward.

Primarily because there's no proposal yet. Write a proposal, using the 
proposal template - 
https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/ProposalTemplate - and I'll 
sponsor the proposal to the board. I'm pretty sure I said that before, 
but I'm saying it again here - I'm kind of the default "new SIG sponsor" 
if nobody else explicitly steps up to do it. Consider me your sponsor.

> It confuses me why it has been indicated that with Stream the board wants more SIGs but the same level of redtape to avoid them remains in place.

We have approved three new SIGs so far this year.

> Feel free to jump on the IRC channel and see if any board members become available to discuss this issue.

Sure, that would be fine, but having the discussion here ensures that 
it's available to more people. THere has been specific feedback and 
questions, right here in this thread, that remain unanswered. The way 
forward is to write a SIG proposal that addresses those questions.

> I personally have become completely demoralized and have a better understanding now why EL Repo does not make use of any CentOS resources to function.
> I like your ideas and would like to help move this forward but I have no further advise at this time.