Licensing/Structure

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Sep 5 13:17:22 PDT 2000


> On Licensing

I'd go with GPL. I don't see why we would want to use other licenses, but 
then again I probably don't know enough about licensing to make up a real 
opinion so I'm open for suggestions.

> On Structure
>
> How should we organize ourselves? Should we use

In what ways can we organize ourselves. Got any idea or view on that one?

> CVS? Who gets write access? Why? How are bug
> reports submitted? Who is responsible for them?

CVS: sure
Who write access: not everybody, that'll become too crazy. I'd just say 
people who are actually coding something like a backend.

The backend-coders shouldn't get write access to update the LFS-API and 
profile. The backend should be written according the current API and profile. 
So API/Profile changes should be done by one of the core developers who 
currently are me, Bryan and Jesse. I think not too many people should be in 
the core team. Don't get me wrong I don't want to create an elite team, it'll 
all still be open, but just some kind of hierarchie. 

> Who wants to do more than just test the system,
> and develop the profiler, our main frontend,
> backend? How can we divide work between us, while
> still maintaining some sense of order? Who wants

We can divide work best if we create groups. The core group would do the 
lowest level things such as maintaining the API, profiles. Of course 
everybody contributes to the profile, makes suggestions but that particulair 
group makes the final decisisons on it and writes the new profile changes and 
commits to CVS.
Then for every kind of backend we can create a subgroup, example:
alfs-python
alfs-perl
alfs-c

Each of those groups will get their own dedicated mailinglist so alfs-discuss 
won't be flooded (this will be transformed into a generic mailinglist where 
we don't discuss specific coding things).

The lists will be of course open, but we need a group leader which will not 
be me. I'm not going to actually design a backend or frontend myself. I'll 
just lurk on the lists and give my $0.02 from time to time.

Who becomes a leader? I guess the first person to offer coding a new backend 
will become the group leader and will be accountable to me as the ALFS 
project leader. Kind of how Johan Lenglet is the leader of the LFS traducfr 
(french translation) project. He's their group leader and just reports to me 
when something needs to be done (like mailinglist archive or whatever).

So in one word: delegation.

> to do the website? After we get something

It would be nice if the website has the same design/layout as the LFS 
website. I'll be doing that site so I can maintain consistency between the 
two project's websites. Of course, help when you want to help.

> built/working, should anyone from our group
> publicize our efforts? I mean what if some
> reporter wants to talk to someone? Who can write

I don't know if I want to become the PR guy, although I would not mind it at 
all. But if there is anybody here who has actual PR experience he/she would 
be better suited for the job and I'd gladly let him/her take over. So until 
somebody else comes forwards I'll do that.

> the documentation for alfs? What other questions
> should we be asking?

I think the best way to organize ourselves is the following:

I myself will take charge of every sub-project (PR, documentation, etc) until 
somebody else offers to take over from me. That way we don't have 
unmaintained projects. Though my time's limited so the more I have to do the 
slower things go. So that's why I hope there are people who want to spend 
some serious time on certains tasks and that way become an alfs-subproject 
leader.

There is no application required. Just an email saying what you would like to 
do will be enough in most cases.



-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-





More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list