On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 01:15:42PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 28.10.2008 12:53, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:26:24PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> A EPEL SIG member is somebody that cares of EPEL as a whole; somebody
>> who helps making EPEL better/who does work beyond the packaging
> How do you distinguish practically both kind of contributors?
> I personnally think that this distinction isn't really meaningfull,
For us that's true. But for the SIG members it's something different;
they can feel special if they are part of a SIG, and that might help
getting them more involved to help bring EPEL forward.
But don't they feel likely special when they are subscribed to the list
and help making the decisions here?
You didn't really responded to the question about who is an EPEL SIG
member. The people who put themselves on the
page? I don't think it makes sense. Otherwise said I don't think there
is an need for an artificial differentiation among EPEL contributors
when it is not associated with entrance barriers nor special powers nor
a need to communicate EPEL contributors. There was a need, in the past
to communicate who was really interested in EPEL, when the project was
small, but today, is there such a need?
I'd leave the SIG stuff in place as it is, as it doesn't do
any harm but
might help. References to the EPEL SIG and it's Steering Committee might
also exist in other parts of the wiki and might be important for the
government modell. FESCo iirc put "driving EPEL" in the hands of the
EPEL SIG and its steering committee.
The steering commitee is another story, I think it makes sense, and it
is in my opinion, something similar with FESCo for fedora (and with less
missions). There has to be some way to decide when there is no
agreement. It is the steering committee that FESCo endorses, not the