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