On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:17:06PM -0700, Pete Travis wrote:
On Feb 26, 2015 1:59 PM, "Paul W. Frields" stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:37:55AM -0700, Pete Travis wrote:
On Feb 26, 2015 6:57 AM, "Paul W. Frields" stickster@gmail.com wrote:
I wanted to resurface the third party repository topic before we get to next week's meeting. Currently we have the following page drafted that discusses the new disabled repo feature currently in Fedora 22 Workstation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/3rdPartyApps
Currently there's a policy from the Council (nee Board) on third party repos here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy
This policy doesn't address one of the problems I believe we're trying to solve in software -- making developer access to non-libre (but legally OK) tools on Fedora less convoluted and burdensome.
So there's not just the question of implementation and curation, but also getting a policy change approved by the Council.
This would make more sense to me as a Change proposal, with all the
process
and publicity that comes with that. A change in Fedora like this is
much
greater than the actual implementation details; treating it like a minor gnome-software feature add isn't representative of the impact on the project.
Except the Change process is focused on sorting out changes that make more than the owner do work to integrate, vs. those that don't. I think calling this a Change actually demote this to a purely technical decision, and I don't want to see it treated that way. So I think your suggestion achieves the opposite of what you intend.
"Demotion" sounds like we might be on the same page about impact, at least :) The Change process is technically focused, but it's still *the* process for major feature changes to get community review. These changes are almost entirely technical in nature, but FYI-type changes for marketing and documentation purposes happen too. Participation in the process would still allow for policy review, community feedback, coordination with other groups, and maybe even stretch the Change process itself to accommodate less technical proposals.
That's completely correct, but without policy the technical feature isn't going to have any impact AFAICT.