Resurrecting this for one more question and starting with a top post (gasp):
I was re-reading the entire proposal this morning while considering my
vote. This time through, I thought to myself, "How does this overlap
with our existing modularity objective?" Can you touch on that, as it
seems both of these will be touching some of the same "parts."
regards,
bex
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:15 PM Paul Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:25 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 12:51:33PM -0400, Paul Frields wrote:
> > * I doubt this is a project that will be "done once and for all."
> > There will be some iteration needed. We've discovered enough when we
> > can plan out 3, maybe 4 releases worth of work (say, to F32 or so).
> > The environment around Fedora changes too rapidly to make it
> > worthwhile to go further.
>
> That's fair. We want the Objectives to have a bounded scope; it may be that
> the end result is a SIG or other subproject, or some changes to the project
> that keep working but no longer need to be an Objective. Or, it may be that
> (as I think is likely here) the first phase will be followed by others, each
> with 12-18 month horizons.
ACK.
What is the next step in the approval process?
--
Paul
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedor...
--
Brian (bex) Exelbierd | bexelbie(a)redhat.com | bex(a)pobox.com
Fedora Community Action & Impact Coordinator
@bexelbie |
http://www.winglemeyer.org