| 1 |
Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> To some extent, we're back to determining what the word "official" means |
| 4 |
> in these cases. My goal in making projects easy to create was to |
| 5 |
> support innovative ideas. Most innovative ideas don't pan out, however, |
| 6 |
> so a corollary has to be that just because a project exists (and thus is |
| 7 |
> somehow "official") doesn't mean that anything useful will come out of |
| 8 |
> it, nor that what does come out of it will be supported by the community |
| 9 |
> as a whole. If we need to change things to make that reality more clear, I'm |
| 10 |
> certainly willing to listen to suggestions. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I really like the idea that people can create new projects w/o some |
| 13 |
overseeing board, but I don't like new projects that don't announce an |
| 14 |
RFC before they say "here we are". I'd like to keep this process easy, |
| 15 |
and I do agree with you that this particular case may not have fallen |
| 16 |
under the GLEP area. So that being said, what's the harm in requiring |
| 17 |
folks to send an RFC to -dev a few weeks prior to making some kind of |
| 18 |
public announcement? I know that several people will argue that a lot of |
| 19 |
things in a project may not be drawn out completely, but I think |
| 20 |
encouraging people wanting to create new projects to try and at least go |
| 21 |
through most of the process before announcing it to the world is a good |
| 22 |
ideal. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I'm not implying that an RFC needs to be as drawn out as a GLEP, but it |
| 25 |
certainly should lay out the goals, plans, some implementation details. |
| 26 |
Who knows, maybe you'll get a few folks interested right off and that's |
| 27 |
a plus for you in the long run. You'll of course have the few who will |
| 28 |
flame the idea and you'll just have to take what they say as a grain of |
| 29 |
salt. We're all knowledgeable about various things, why can't we utilize |
| 30 |
that asset? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If people like this idea, I'd like to propose the council to add an |
| 33 |
addendum to our "new projects" policy to include the requirement of some |
| 34 |
kind of RFC before a public announcement saying 'we're ready' is done. |
| 35 |
Its kind of a 'peer' review type of thing and it also builds |
| 36 |
trust/communication between all of us. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
This whole issue boils down to accountability and communication. We want |
| 39 |
to make sure that We (gentoo) as a whole can be accountable for a |
| 40 |
project that is created. We also want to be informed so that we can |
| 41 |
either comment or become involved in a new project during its formation. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 45 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
--- |
| 48 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 49 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives