On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 13:07:39 +0200 Dominique Leuenberger <dimstar@opensuse.org> wrote:
On Fri, 2024-07-26 at 11:00 +0200, josef Reidinger wrote:
So it will mean that technically TW/Leap is driven by one of SUSE team. That is for me problematic from two points. The first one is that Early Adopters team is basically playground for new technologies for SUSE products, which I am not sure is not always in conflict with users/community interest. And the second reason is that it is not anyway formalized, so I do not expect many people know it ( including me ), that they should contact your team for such decisions ( is it even publicly available who is responsible for what and who is in team? ). For example I mention on my talk on OSC that it would be nice to have for newbies default desktop selected in TW and Leap, to avoid unnecessary confusion for people coming from windows or mac world. So who should I contact for such decision?
You confuse my team with Thorsten's Team: Future Technologies.
Tumbleweed has always been, and should always remain, 'open to new technlogogies' (you can call it playground) for as long as it does not break stuff immediately (break down the line when the new tech has become standard is sometimes inevitable, e.g sysv -> systemd)
Conflict is the nature of people interacting. Always has happened, always will happen.
The team formally responsible for all Leap and Tumbleweed releases is listed at https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Release_team
""" The team also tries to facilitate and take decisions regarding the direction and well being of the openSUSE distributions. """
There is a weekly "Release Engineering" meeting where aspects for Tumbleweed/Leap/MicroOS/Aeon are being discussed.
https://calendar.opensuse.org/teams/release/events/opensuse-release-engineer...
Meeting minutes are being published weekly to the mailing lists and are kept for reference on etherpad.
I kind of expect that Release Engineering is more about topics regarding issues with releasing product, not about technical directions of product.
We are too good to have technical problems every week :)
Large scale changes (like AppArmor -> SELinux switch just recently proposed) are always redirected to the factory mailing list, where people are welcome to participate and give their feedback. Based on that (minus trolls) the RelEng team will loop back with the original proposal to move forward (or not).
The model seems to have worked reliably well so far. Of course there is always room for improvement, but considering that things like Aeon and Kalpa could come out, or initiatives like Slowroll, seems to indicate that people seem to find their ways around 'somehow'
Cheers, Dominique
Do not get me wrong, I do not blame your work as result of it I am happily using everyday. I just thing that this model basically means that openSUSE ( or whatever new name is used ) is not community distribution based on SUSE source codes ( for leap case ) or with SUSE as major contributor ( for TW ), but it is more SUSE driven free distribution with community support. So maybe we should somehow distinguish it that TW and Leap is SUSE driven and stuff like Aeon is not officially SUSE driven. In this light I have to say that I really support Jeff idea to do beside openSUSE rename also governance change that allows more community engagement. Josef