Michael Schwendt wrote:
One thing for sure, there exist common goals and opportunities. But I seriously think it is way to early for both Fedora and the Red Hat Linux Project to discuss something like this on a rhl-beta list. We should all wait and see what Red Hat has in the queue with regard to their more open development model.
I don't think we should ALL wait and see...from my reading of what redhat employee's have said to date on this list atleast...the shape of the open development model is still in in need of some defining, and they seem to be willing to engage in a discussion of some of the core issues and policies that need to be in place to cede responsibility to community members. The people that need to be talking to each other about how to open up the development process of rhlp to community control, probably know who they are already. And of course its too early to look so far ahead...but maybe it would be instructive for everyone if there was a listing of prominent first step issues that need to be addressed on how we get to something like what Havoc wrote: "I would say yes in general RHL can have a lot of stuff in it that we aren't expecting to support."
If RHL is going to contain things redhat is not going to support directly as a goal...how do we get there from here? What are the obvious and not so obvious obstacles that would affect an application in rhl that redhat isn't supporting directly? I would hope that the basic issue of how to include this community managed applications into rhl will be worked out in time to see some examples of community based packages in the next beta cycle. But in this beta cycle there has to be a focusing on planning for those initial test cases.
-jef"beginnings are hard"spaleta