[RPM Fusion] Update of "Goals" by AndreaMusuruane

[Andrea Musuruane]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
> Andrea, thx for your comments and enhancements. Much appreciated.

You are welcome.

> One general remark: I guess we should try to keep the page itself discussion
> free once we finish it.
>
>>  === Ideas nobody is working on ===
>>  + [musuruan: is it feasible to have some of these ideas as GSoC?]
>
> I'm not really familiar with GSoC, but I doubt that it'll work when we do it
> directly. Maybe it's easier and better if it could be done as GSoC projects
> done in Fedora. But I'm not sure if Fedora would be willing to do something
> like that.

The basic idea is to gain visibility and to find some developers (i.e.
non-packagers) since we need them. I don't know if GCoC is feasible or
not, but it is very visible.

>> + + [musuruan: can we have a synergy with 3rd party doc sites? Fedora FAQ
>> and Fedorasolved comes to my mind.]
>
> Yes, maybe that would be a good idea.

Do somebody in RPM Fusion know them and can contact them?

>>   * rpmfusion-buildsys-list is broken;  +  * no announcement mailing list;
>> + + [musuruan: what is the problem in having one?]
>
> it's the usual problem: Somebody need to sit down and do it/poke the people
> with access to the necessary places ;-)

Yep... we need more people with these rights.

>> + + [musuruan: can we look for more contributors in the fedora-docs-list?]
>
> Sure.

Do somebody in RPM Fusion know them and can contact them?

>> + * we need a place where to host RPM Fusion projects. Something like
>> [[https://fedorahosted.org|Fedora Hosted]].
>
> Do we? Why can't we use Fedora Hosted directly? Sure, some of the tools we
> need may deal with nonfree software, but I guess all of us want the tools
> itself be open source and thus acceptable for Fedora Hosted?

I'm not sure but I don't think that we can host applications whose
licenses do not follow the Fedora Guidelines in Fedora Hosted.

Bye,

Andrea.