From nman64 at n-man.com Sat Jul 1 01:31:45 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:31:45 -0500 Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing In-Reply-To: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> References: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200606302031.51186.nman64@n-man.com> On Friday 30 June 2006 16:32, Will Woods wrote: > > For the past month, I have been talking to Red Hat employees and Fedora > developers and enthusiasts about the idea of a Fedora testing project. > > The mission of this project would be to use and develop Open Source test > software, test tools, and test processes to improve the overall quality > of Fedora and other Open Source software. In short, this would be like a > Red Hat-backed QA department for Fedora that produces things the whole > world can use. > > Red Hat has committed to donating code and employee time to this > project. They will be making code and documentation available through > https://testing.108.redhat.com/ and employing me to lead it. > > To this end, I'm writing today to formally request that you consider > making this effort an official Fedora project. A project page can be > found on the Fedora Project wiki which gives more detail about proposed > subprojects, goals, and so on: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraTesting > > Thank you for taking the time to consider this. If there's any further > information needed, don't hesitate to contact me. > One minor thing you might consider... We generally try to avoid redundant names on the wiki. This means excluding "Fedora" and "Project" when creating a new project page. A Testing page already exists, but could be hijacked or amended for this new project. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Testing -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gdk at redhat.com Sat Jul 1 14:53:42 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 10:53:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing In-Reply-To: <44A5B1F5.9070200@fedoraproject.org> References: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <44A5B1F5.9070200@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: Good start, Will. I think Rahul's comments are right on, though: On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I would let the test suite run on a full development cycle, get the > community involved and show the results before accepting it as a Fedora > Project. +1. > There a few more related things to look into. BugZappers (bug triaging) > needs a active team behind it. While there are few interested people, it > is not currently well organized. +1. BugZappers *must* have a strong, engaged leader to succeed. IMHO, if you or someone like you isn't spending a day a week thinking about how to build out a strong BugZappers team, then it's never going to achieve critical mass. > There are nice improvements to Red Hat bugzilla that could help. Ex: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/reports/core-bugs-today.cgi. Also we need to > make sure that bugbuddy works well as a desktop client with Red Hat > bugzilla. Look into cooperating with this team - > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-June/msg00014.html. +1 again. This should be its own subproject. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jul 3 12:57:13 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:57:13 -0400 Subject: [fab] Build and include NTFS module In-Reply-To: <1151362360.23849.1.camel@ender> References: <1151357738.20056.444.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> <1151362360.23849.1.camel@ender> Message-ID: <1151931433.2789.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 18:52 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 03:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > I would like to hear a decision on this being made by our counsel. We > > have included Mono in Fedora on the basis of OIN > > (http://openinventionnetwork.com/). OIN covers the Linux kernel as one > > of its many components protected by it. Would this be enough for > > Fedora > > to include and build the NTFS module in the kernel package? > > Actually, it would be just build and distribute the NTFS module. We > already include it in source form as part of the kernel srpm. > > On a different note, I understand the OIN protects us as we distribute, > how does it protect others as they REdistribute? Is there any > protection? Has anyone taken up the banner for this issue? I hate to be a finger pointer, but since this may involve discussion with Red Hat's legal department, we outside folks may not be able to handle it. I'm sorry I didn't put in a +1 on this issue earlier, I plumb forgot. Referring back to earlier discussions, it seems there's a LOT of interest in fixing this situation. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bugs.michael at gmx.net Tue Jul 4 11:47:06 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 13:47:06 +0200 Subject: [fab] 2006-06-20 agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060704134706.c52a746e.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:21:04 -0400 (EDT), Max Spevack wrote: > * Did FESCO talk about the sponsorship questions that were raised in our > last meeting? Did they make any decisions? What were those decisions? So I arrived at this thread and tried to collect some pieces: | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2006-06-06 | Extras Sponsorship | | First off, we all agreed that we're talking about this at the Board level, | but the actual action on the issue of Extras Sponsorship needs to happen | at the Fedora Extras Steering Committee (FESCO) level -- they are the ones | with the decision making accountability in this case, to either act or not | act. | | We heard at the Red Hat Summit that the sponsorship process isn't as | smooth or efficient as possible. Again and again, complaints like this are totally inappropriate. Who is "we", and who talked to you? Define "smooth" and "efficient". How "smooth or efficient" could the process be? | When we started talking about it, these | points were made, for consideration by anyone who enjoys the topic: | | * Some people don't want to be sponsors, and as in all parts of Fedora, | the number of people working on something is always a limiting factor. Anyone, who may have observed FESCO for the past months, should know how new sponsors have been proposed/selected. Initially, we assumed that very active reviewers would enjoy being able to also sponsor new contributors, so they could become even more productive. Suggested reviewers were collected and discussed briefly. On agreement, somebody then contacted the persons privately to ask whether the role of being a sponsor was accepted or rejected. A problem with this is not that somebody might reject the offer to become a sponsor. It is that hardly anybody does enough monitoring of "potential sponsors" in public Fedora places of activity (like bugzilla, CVS commits, mailing-lists) to suggest new sponsors _every week_. The amount of bugzilla traffic caused by package reviews is big. Automated metrics, collecting numbers on "approved packages", "packages in FE", "open reviews" and so on, only help a little bit, since there is a big difference between approving packages of existing contributors, who create clean packages, and taking a look at new contributors and their packages, which sometimes need a lot of work to even build and run. For potential sponsors (in general, very active reviewers) the primary question is whether and how they approach new contributors, who need a lot of help and guidance, and their packages, which may contain a lot of problems and pitfalls. Hence we started asking for self-nominations. To learn about active reviewers who are interested in becoming sponsors. Interested people then could give good examples of their reviewing activity. Now to the sponsor's obligations. When you approve the account request of a new contributor, you're not done. It may turn out that the sponsored person needs much more hand-holding (with Using CVS, maintaining the packages, build problems, upstream changes) and monitoring (incoming PRs and responses, package changes). It would not be the first time. And it has been criticised a couple of times that there is no post-review QA for FE. Actually, packagers are able to reintroduce packaging bugs and pitfalls, throwing away the good help they've got during the single review of their package. Some of these bugs are show-stoppers for everyone at Fedora Extras, such as the unfiltered SONAME "Provides", which have hit us at least twice, causing the buildsys to fail for many contributors. Sponsors need some time to get to know other _new_ contributors before they decide whether to sponsor them. If new contributors are not patient enough, two very good recommendations for them are - to offer working packages, at least make the src.rpm build -- it is a real pain to see how some reviewers spend much more time on incoming packages than their soon to be maintainers, - don't argue with the reviewer about the PackagingGuidelines -- wrong person, wrong place, spend your energy on contacting the packaging-list or the Packaging Group if you feel it's important, - ask questions (if you are unsure about something) and show your interest. The sponsorship process guarantees the availability of minimal resources for help/guidance (either if asked directly or if they discover something while monitoring sponsored contributors). If the number of contributors, who need help regularly, increased too fast, you can be sure that the number of problems in FE would increase, too. Plus the number of people, who drop off silently (in frustration or because they cannot handle the requirements), leaving orphaned packages until they are discovered. | * Are there major problems, or were there just a few folks grumbling? Occasionally, there are "a few folks grumbling" _in the wrong places_ about the time it takes for some packages to enter FE. Maybe these are the same folks who want the package reviews be removed? Everyone, who has complained in unknown/secret places before, talk to FESCO directly in case of serious complaints. Don't try to introduce some kind of pressure by talking to Red Hat employees or other people you assume have "something to say". This is damaging the community side of the project. There is also wrong terminology/jargon being used. Some folks keep saying "packages are sponsored", but it is: _persons_ are sponsored, _packages_ are reviewed and approved. | Is there a reasonable way for us to get meaningful data to help answer | this question? | | * Does the sponsorship process scale well enough? | | ACTION ITEM: | | * SethVidal will mention this topic in a FESCO meeting, and FESCO can | do with it what they will. From wwoods at redhat.com Wed Jul 5 21:16:11 2006 From: wwoods at redhat.com (Will Woods) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:16:11 -0400 Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing In-Reply-To: References: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <44A5B1F5.9070200@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1152134171.21676.19.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 10:53 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > I would let the test suite run on a full development cycle, get the > > community involved and show the results before accepting it as a Fedora > > Project. Sure, it's up to the board to decide whether to accept this as a Fedora Project. We'll be running tests, releasing code, and hopefully writing new stuff all through the rest of the FC6 development cycle either way. > > There a few more related things to look into. BugZappers (bug triaging) > > needs a active team behind it. While there are few interested people, it > > is not currently well organized. > > +1. BugZappers *must* have a strong, engaged leader to succeed. IMHO, if > you or someone like you isn't spending a day a week thinking about how to > build out a strong BugZappers team, then it's never going to achieve > critical mass. I agree. I definitely want to see this work. I'm trying to put together some bugzilla tools to make this easier on myself and/or whoever ends up driving the Bug Bus in the future. > > There are nice improvements to Red Hat bugzilla that could help. Ex: > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/reports/core-bugs-today.cgi. Also we need to > > make sure that bugbuddy works well as a desktop client with Red Hat > > bugzilla. Look into cooperating with this team - > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-June/msg00014.html. > > +1 again. This should be its own subproject. Yeah, there's plenty of work to be done here. Right now I feel like Bugzilla improvements and the BugZappers revival are so closely linked that they could start out as two parts of the same project, but in the future I could see the Bugzilla-related tools being an offshoot project from BugZappers. -w -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 5 21:33:28 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 03:03:28 +0530 Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing In-Reply-To: <1152134171.21676.19.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> References: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <44A5B1F5.9070200@fedoraproject.org> <1152134171.21676.19.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44AC3028.6080401@fedoraproject.org> Will Woods wrote: >On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 10:53 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > >>On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >> >> >>>I would let the test suite run on a full development cycle, get the >>>community involved and show the results before accepting it as a Fedora >>>Project. >>> >>> > >Sure, it's up to the board to decide whether to accept this as a Fedora >Project. We'll be running tests, releasing code, and hopefully writing >new stuff all through the rest of the FC6 development cycle either way. > > Yes. We dont have to wait on this be a official project to do the work necessary. >>>There are nice improvements to Red Hat bugzilla that could help. Ex: >>>http://bugzilla.gnome.org/reports/core-bugs-today.cgi. Also we need to >>>make sure that bugbuddy works well as a desktop client with Red Hat >>>bugzilla. Look into cooperating with this team - >>>https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2006-June/msg00014.html. >>> >>> >>+1 again. This should be its own subproject. >> >> > >Yeah, there's plenty of work to be done here. Right now I feel like >Bugzilla improvements and the BugZappers revival are so closely linked >that they could start out as two parts of the same project, but in the >future I could see the Bugzilla-related tools being an offshoot project >from BugZappers. > >-w > > One related thing if we can do it, is to publish the Red Hat bugzilla changes into a public SCM repository as and when its done so people external to Red Hat could hack on it. Last I heard, there were various pieces of internal infrastructure tied to the modifications but this is something worth looking into and improvements to bugzilla and related client side tools are inherently tied to each other and needs to be done in parallel to be efficient. Having a separate page for Fedora Bugzilla like say http://bugzilla.redhat.com/fedora which just lists the Fedora items and related highlights like incoming bug reports might work out better. The sheer number of products and components listed is confusing and many of them are completely irrelevant to Fedora users. I would suggest you start a discussion on fedora-test list (changing the focus to general QA) and see which things needs to be done and pull in anyone interested to work on them. Rahul From kwade at redhat.com Wed Jul 5 23:53:04 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:53:04 -0700 Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing In-Reply-To: <1152134171.21676.19.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> References: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <44A5B1F5.9070200@fedoraproject.org> <1152134171.21676.19.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152143585.16657.257.camel@erato.phig.org> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 17:16 -0400, Will Woods wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 10:53 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > > I would let the test suite run on a full development cycle, get the > > > community involved and show the results before accepting it as a Fedora > > > Project. Whose development cycle? FCs? $UNNAMED_PROJECT's? > Sure, it's up to the board to decide whether to accept this as a Fedora > Project. We'll be running tests, releasing code, and hopefully writing > new stuff all through the rest of the FC6 development cycle either way. Since this new project approval process is, well, new, I want to do a sanity check on what I think I see here. Is this statement accurate? "You want proof of the viability of the project _before_ it becomes a formal Fedora Project project, i.e., gets to use the name Fedora Something Project." These points come to mind from this: 1. If this barrier were in place previously some projects (Fedora Ambassadors) wouldn't have gotten very far. "We are the Ambassadors Project. Ambassadors for what? Uh, stuff." Sometimes what differentiates a project is just the Fedora moniker, as well as the mission. How can a project distinguish itself as Fedora-name-carrying-worthy without having the association in the first place? Let's call this, the Chicken and the Egg Problem. 2. How then does a project name itself in a meaningful and memorable way, if it *hopes* but is not *guaranteed* acceptance as a project? For example, "Testing Project" doesn't stick that well without the "Fedora" at the beginning. So, Will decides to call it "Velodrome", a catchy name that captures the speedy and testing (proving ground) nature of the project. Then it gets accepted as a Fedora project after the Velodrome name has stuck. Do we call it "Fedora Velodrome"? "Velodrome, the Fedora Testing Project"? "Velodrome, a division of Fedora Project?" In some cases, the Velodrome brand might be worth more. But perhaps the project gains more from the Fedora renaming? We go through this in the corporate/consumer world with product acquisition and renaming. Do we want to introduce this to Fedora? 3. The above holds true for existing projects with existing names, although it is more poignant for projects trying to catch their first few breaths. 4. What does it mean to be a formal Fedora Project project, beyond the name? That is, is someone restricted from using the Wiki for the project until then? How about CVS? Plone? This raises the problem that is outside of this discussion but related, that of how FP provides project infrastructure. What is the barrier to get a project space? What does it mean to go from a (small p)roject to a (large P)roject? 5. How many contributors does FP bring to the party? Conversely, how many are held back (unaware, resistant, etc.) by withholding project recognition? How much risk is a nascent project put to by trying to breath on its own as an unrecognized child? The concern here is that we can miss out on valuable projects coming to life because we withhold vital support when it could help the most. Knowing when to apply the spatula and when the knife is sometimes a subtle thing, what happens when he hand over that decision to a process? As much as I love a good, well-documented process, I want to keep care not to smother the rise of good idea. - Karsten, balancing on the delicate knife's edge of metaphoria -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Jul 6 18:32:53 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:32:53 -0500 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication Message-ID: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Hi All, Now that the Packaging Committee is responsible for the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, I think we should revisit how it and FESCo interact. My basic concern is that one hand doesn't necessarily know what the other is doing anymore and that is bothersome. In the olden days, FESCo discussed the guidelines and spot would approve them if they made sense. Now, FESCo (as a whole) doesn't really even know what's being discussed anymore. Take for example the changelog format discussion. I said we should discuss that in FESCo a bit and was told the Packaging committee already discussed and decided the matter. I realize that there are members of FESCo on the Packaging Committee. And it's not as if I think the Packaging Committee is a bad idea, or are doing things wrong. However I think the communication channels between the two committees should be a bit more than "here's your new guidelines, enjoy." Thoughts, comments? josh From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jul 6 19:51:20 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:51:20 -0400 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:32, Josh Boyer wrote: > I realize that there are members of FESCo on the Packaging Committee. > And it's not as if I think the Packaging Committee is a bad idea, or are > doing things wrong. ?However I think the communication channels between > the two committees should be a bit more than "here's your new > guidelines, ?enjoy." > > Thoughts, comments? It should be up to the FESCO representation in the Packaging committee to keep FESCO abreast of whats to be discussed, how it effects Extras and what FESCO's opinions might be. Ditto for Red Hat's representative re Red Hats interest (for Core and RHEL). Its also the representatives responsibility to bring new issues brought up by FESCO, or Red Hat, to the packaging committee to discuss. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Jul 6 20:13:52 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:13:52 -0500 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 15:51 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:32, Josh Boyer wrote: > > I realize that there are members of FESCo on the Packaging Committee. > > And it's not as if I think the Packaging Committee is a bad idea, or are > > doing things wrong. However I think the communication channels between > > the two committees should be a bit more than "here's your new > > guidelines, enjoy." > > > > Thoughts, comments? > > It should be up to the FESCO representation in the Packaging committee to keep > FESCO abreast of whats to be discussed, how it effects Extras and what > FESCO's opinions might be. Ditto for Red Hat's representative re Red Hats > interest (for Core and RHEL). Its also the representatives responsibility to > bring new issues brought up by FESCO, or Red Hat, to the packaging committee > to discuss. Sure, I agree with all of that. But there isn't time allowed to do so. Decisions are made in the meeting and the _results_ are shared with FESCo. In order for FESCo representation to really be a representation of what FESCo feels on the matter, time must be given for FESCo to look over the discussion. Then the reps can take the outcome of the FESCo discussion back to the Packaging Committee. I'd venture that in the majority of cases, the response would be "sounds fine." But it's important to allow for that response. Perhaps there should be a period of time where the outcomes are shared with FESCo/RH before announcing them to the general public. That way you'd at least get some time for commenting. Maybe it's a coincidence that the changelog format was discussed and decided upon without anyone knowing it would happen. I'm just trying to prevent something like that from happening again. Again, it's not that I think the Packaging Committee is doing anything wrong. I think the communication process between FESCo (and the RH side too for that matter) needs to be a bit more thought out. When I asked what the relationship of the Packaging Committee is to FESCo, the response I got was "lord and serf". That is wrong IMHO. josh From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Jul 6 20:24:49 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:24:49 -0500 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <44AD7191.3030902@math.unl.edu> Josh Boyer wrote: > I think the communication process between FESCo (and the RH side > too for that matter) needs to be a bit more thought out. Packaging Committee topics are posted to: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo FESCo members can post items there too. Otherwise, to me, the only difference between before the Packaging Committee existed and now, is that instead of spot approving packaging policy himself, that role is now played by the committee. -- Rex From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Jul 6 20:46:46 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:46:46 -0500 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <44AD7191.3030902@math.unl.edu> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44AD7191.3030902@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1152218806.22623.126.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 15:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > I think the communication process between FESCo (and the RH side > > too for that matter) needs to be a bit more thought out. > > Packaging Committee topics are posted to: > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GuidelinesTodo And the changelog format issue is nowhere to be found... > FESCo members can post items there too. > > Otherwise, to me, the only difference between before the Packaging > Committee existed and now, is that instead of spot approving packaging > policy himself, that role is now played by the committee. Not from my point of view. Before, the guidelines only effected Extras. So FESCo discussed them, and spot would approve. Now, they effect both Core and Extras so a committee was formed. That is all well and good, but as I said before there doesn't appear to be any sort of formal process for disclosing the updates to FESCo. The FESCo reps don't have time to gather input from FESCo itself on the issues. One could argue that FESCo members should all attend the Packaging Committee meetings themselves, but I think that is counter-productive. The Packaging Committee should discuss the guidelines and come to a consensus which is then presented to FESCo/RH/Legacy/whomever. If there are no major objections, then they become official as is. I think that is reasonable. All I'm asking for is time for the reps from various parties to discuss the issues with the groups the represent and a mechanism for them to be able to do that. josh From katzj at redhat.com Thu Jul 6 21:04:04 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:04:04 -0400 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <1152218806.22623.126.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44AD7191.3030902@math.unl.edu> <1152218806.22623.126.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1152219844.3597.48.camel@aglarond.local> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 15:46 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > All I'm asking for is time for the reps from various parties to discuss > the issues with the groups the represent and a mechanism for them to be > able to do that. This sounds pretty sane to me, really. For all that spot is all-knowing, he'll occasionally miss _something_. To try for a proposal The results of policy decisions from the Fedora Packaging Committee now affect a number of different constituents within Fedora. While there are representatives from those different constituents on FPC, it's not fair to assume that one person knows everything. Therefore, the proposal is to have changes to packaging policy have a week[1] for review from impacted groups before they are "set in stone"[2]. Also, the constituents involved in FESCO, RH, etc are accountable for getting the changes before their respective groups for review. Jeremy [1] Insert arbitrary time here... since most groups are meeting weekly, a week seemed fine. Plus, it does allow for at least the communication to occur even if there's not a meeting [2] Not that anything is ever fully set in stone From katzj at redhat.com Thu Jul 6 21:10:29 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:10:29 -0400 Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing In-Reply-To: <1152143585.16657.257.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <44A5B1F5.9070200@fedoraproject.org> <1152134171.21676.19.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <1152143585.16657.257.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1152220229.3597.56.camel@aglarond.local> I don't have a _lot_ of answers... but a few random thoughts On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 16:53 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 17:16 -0400, Will Woods wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 10:53 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > > > > I would let the test suite run on a full development cycle, get the > > > > community involved and show the results before accepting it as a Fedora > > > > Project. > > Whose development cycle? FCs? $UNNAMED_PROJECT's? The FC6 cycle -- given a large part of the testing, at least at this point, will revolve around distro testing. > > Sure, it's up to the board to decide whether to accept this as a Fedora > > Project. We'll be running tests, releasing code, and hopefully writing > > new stuff all through the rest of the FC6 development cycle either way. > > Since this new project approval process is, well, new, I want to do a > sanity check on what I think I see here. Is this statement accurate? > > "You want proof of the viability of the project _before_ it becomes a > formal Fedora Project project, i.e., gets to use the name Fedora > Something Project." Yes. > These points come to mind from this: > > 1. If this barrier were in place previously some projects (Fedora > Ambassadors) wouldn't have gotten very far. "We are the Ambassadors > Project. Ambassadors for what? Uh, stuff." Actually, I think this is one of the reasons ambassadors succeeded. Proof of viability doesn't mean you're going full steam ahead -- it means that you have a plan that's credible. What's involved for that will differ depending on the type of project. > 2. How then does a project name itself in a meaningful and memorable > way, if it *hopes* but is not *guaranteed* acceptance as a project? > > For example, "Testing Project" doesn't stick that well without the > "Fedora" at the beginning. So, Will decides to call it "Velodrome", a > catchy name that captures the speedy and testing (proving ground) nature > of the project. Then it gets accepted as a Fedora project after the > Velodrome name has stuck. Do we call it "Fedora Velodrome"? > "Velodrome, the Fedora Testing Project"? "Velodrome, a division of > Fedora Project?" > > In some cases, the Velodrome brand might be worth more. But perhaps the > project gains more from the Fedora renaming? > > We go through this in the corporate/consumer world with product > acquisition and renaming. Do we want to introduce this to Fedora? While there's value in the brand, you dilute that by calling everything "Fedora foo". This is much like how you're starting to see GNOME projects that aren't just named gfoo anymore and are trying to have some identity of their own. Sure, they take advantage of their association with GNOME, but that's not the only thing that makes them valuable. > 4. What does it mean to be a formal Fedora Project project, beyond the > name? That is, is someone restricted from using the Wiki for the > project until then? How about CVS? Plone? This is one of the recurring questions in my mind. And I don't have an obvious answer to it. > 5. How many contributors does FP bring to the party? Conversely, how > many are held back (unaware, resistant, etc.) by withholding project > recognition? How much risk is a nascent project put to by trying to > breath on its own as an unrecognized child? > > The concern here is that we can miss out on valuable projects coming to > life because we withhold vital support when it could help the most. > Knowing when to apply the spatula and when the knife is sometimes a > subtle thing, what happens when he hand over that decision to a process? > > As much as I love a good, well-documented process, I want to keep care > not to smother the rise of good idea. The opposite side of your delicate knife edge is the one where you have so many projects that just don't go anywhere that people are reluctant to join in and help because "well, why will this be different than the last 3 I joined that failed"? Jeremy From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jul 6 21:15:59 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:15:59 -0400 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <1152219844.3597.48.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1152218806.22623.126.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1152219844.3597.48.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <200607061715.59367.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 06 July 2006 17:04, Jeremy Katz wrote: > The results of policy decisions from the Fedora Packaging Committee now > affect a number of different constituents within Fedora. ?While there > are representatives from those different constituents on FPC, it's not > fair to assume that one person knows everything. ?Therefore, the > proposal is to have changes to packaging policy have a week[1] for > review from impacted groups before they are "set in stone"[2]. ?Also, > the constituents involved in FESCO, RH, etc are accountable for getting > the changes before their respective groups for review. WORKSFORME. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Fri Jul 7 00:20:13 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:20:13 -0500 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <1152219844.3597.48.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44AD7191.3030902@math.unl.edu> <1152218806.22623.126.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1152219844.3597.48.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <1152231613.10614.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 17:04 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 15:46 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > All I'm asking for is time for the reps from various parties to discuss > > the issues with the groups the represent and a mechanism for them to be > > able to do that. > > This sounds pretty sane to me, really. For all that spot is > all-knowing, he'll occasionally miss _something_. To try for a proposal > > The results of policy decisions from the Fedora Packaging Committee now > affect a number of different constituents within Fedora. While there > are representatives from those different constituents on FPC, it's not > fair to assume that one person knows everything. Therefore, the > proposal is to have changes to packaging policy have a week[1] for > review from impacted groups before they are "set in stone"[2]. Also, > the constituents involved in FESCO, RH, etc are accountable for getting > the changes before their respective groups for review. Yes, exactly. I was actually getting ready to type up something identical to this :). Does anyone have any problems with this? josh From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Fri Jul 7 00:42:30 2006 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:42:30 -0700 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <1152231613.10614.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44AD7191.3030902@math.unl.edu> <1152218806.22623.126.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1152219844.3597.48.camel@aglarond.local> <1152231613.10614.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1152232950.24961.290.camel@localhost> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 17:04 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > The results of policy decisions from the Fedora Packaging Committee now > > affect a number of different constituents within Fedora. While there > > are representatives from those different constituents on FPC, it's not > > fair to assume that one person knows everything. Therefore, the > > proposal is to have changes to packaging policy have a week[1] for > > review from impacted groups before they are "set in stone"[2]. Also, > > the constituents involved in FESCO, RH, etc are accountable for getting > > the changes before their respective groups for review. > > Yes, exactly. I was actually getting ready to type up something > identical to this :). > > Does anyone have any problems with this? I think it will work fine. Since the packaging committee meets just before FESCo on Thursdays, it works especially well for us. I'll add an agenda item to the FESCo weekly meetings: Packaging Committee Report and Discussion, so some time is allocated to discussing these policies as they are made. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Fri Jul 7 01:52:37 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:52:37 -0500 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <1152232950.24961.290.camel@localhost> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44AD7191.3030902@math.unl.edu> <1152218806.22623.126.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1152219844.3597.48.camel@aglarond.local> <1152231613.10614.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1152232950.24961.290.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1152237157.10614.2.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 17:42 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 17:04 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > The results of policy decisions from the Fedora Packaging Committee now > > > affect a number of different constituents within Fedora. While there > > > are representatives from those different constituents on FPC, it's not > > > fair to assume that one person knows everything. Therefore, the > > > proposal is to have changes to packaging policy have a week[1] for > > > review from impacted groups before they are "set in stone"[2]. Also, > > > the constituents involved in FESCO, RH, etc are accountable for getting > > > the changes before their respective groups for review. > > > > Yes, exactly. I was actually getting ready to type up something > > identical to this :). > > > > Does anyone have any problems with this? > > I think it will work fine. Since the packaging committee meets just > before FESCo on Thursdays, it works especially well for us. I'll add an > agenda item to the FESCo weekly meetings: Packaging Committee Report and > Discussion, so some time is allocated to discussing these policies as > they are made. Excellent. Thanks Toshio. josh From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Fri Jul 7 09:24:29 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian.Iseli at licr.org) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:24:29 +0200 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:42:30 PDT." <1152232950.24961.290.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <200607070924.k679OTgJ003997@ludwig-alpha.unil.ch> toshio at tiki-lounge.com said: > I think it will work fine. Since the packaging committee meets just before > FESCo on Thursdays, it works especially well for us. I'll add an agenda item > to the FESCo weekly meetings: Packaging Committee Report and Discussion, so > some time is allocated to discussing these policies as they are made. Sounds good to me. Thanks, Christian From bugs.michael at gmx.net Fri Jul 7 21:48:14 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 23:48:14 +0200 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available Message-ID: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Begin forwarded message: Summary: RPM 4.4.6 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174307 n3npq at mac.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From n3npq at mac.com 2006-07-07 17:20 EST ------- I'm tired enough of my work being backported without even attribution that I'm gonna slam this bug WONTFIX. I'm seriously contemplating licensing my rpm development to ensure that FC will never ever be able to upgrade rpm. Go honk yer vendors fer fixes. From ville.skytta at iki.fi Sat Jul 8 10:19:18 2006 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:19:18 +0300 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <1152231613.10614.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44AD7191.3030902@math.unl.edu> <1152218806.22623.126.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1152219844.3597.48.camel@aglarond.local> <1152231613.10614.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1152353958.2728.368.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > Does anyone have any problems with this? Not really here, OTOH it would be nice to document/enumerate the constituents that can veto suggested changes alone or together with some others enumerated in case of (hopefully very rare) disagreements as well as document the process what happens if a change is vetoed. But there are probably too many unknown case by case variables involved to be able to do that, so "depends" (which roughly equals to leaving it out) is the best I can come up with at the moment. The "a week" review period could maybe be clarified to "the week between the FPC meeting that suggests these changes and the next FPC meeting, but always >= 6 days". From jkeating at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 16:46:54 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 12:46:54 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 07 July 2006 17:48, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > > > Summary: RPM 4.4.6 is available Ugh. We really need to revoke his bugzilla rights and tell him that if he wants a bug tracking system for his upstream rpm to get one on is own. Red Hat's bugzilla should be for the rpm we include in our products, not upstream. I'm tired of him messing with and closing Fedora / RHEL rpm related bugs with snide upstream comments, that to the casual reader could be considered coming from a Red Hat source. Enough is enough. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Sun Jul 9 16:53:39 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 11:53:39 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152464019.14154.3.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 12:46 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 17:48, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > Summary: RPM 4.4.6 is available > > > Ugh. We really need to revoke his bugzilla rights and tell him that if he > wants a bug tracking system for his upstream rpm to get one on is own. Red > Hat's bugzilla should be for the rpm we include in our products, not > upstream. I'm tired of him messing with and closing Fedora / RHEL rpm > related bugs with snide upstream comments, that to the casual reader could be > considered coming from a Red Hat source. Enough is enough. Not to be antagonistic, but _is_ there an explanation as to why Fedora isn't upgrading RPM? I'm honestly just curious. josh From tiemann at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 17:05:50 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:05:50 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 12:46 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 17:48, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > > > Summary: RPM 4.4.6 is available > > > Ugh. Ugh indeed. But I take the other position--why is there no explanation from the Red Hat side as to why we're not following upstream? I think this is a case of "lead, follow, or get out of the way", and by taking no proactive position on the subject, we're being asked to follow or get out of the way. If we put a clear explanation why we're not following upstream, at least people would know where we stand and why. M From jkeating at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 17:23:02 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:23:02 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> On Sunday 09 July 2006 13:05, Michael Tiemann wrote: > Ugh indeed. ?But I take the other position--why is there no explanation > from the Red Hat side as to why we're not following upstream? ?I think > this is a case of "lead, follow, or get out of the way", and by taking > no proactive position on the subject, we're being asked to follow or get > out of the way. ?If we put a clear explanation why we're not following > upstream, at least people would know where we stand and why. We've been selectively backporting the parts from upstream that make sense. There are some changes that have gone into the upstream RPM releases that we're really not comfortable consuming, such as soft requires (suggests, recommends, enhances) stuff like that. I think there are many more examples of feature sets that we're really not comfortable with, I don't have a list in front of me. This really does sound like a fork situation. An abandonment may not be in our best favor right now, but a fork to further develop how we see fit and repair how we see fit w/out having to fight with unsavory upstream developers may be the best technical solution. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gdk at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 17:26:20 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark Message-ID: This, to me, is a perfect example of why we *need* two marks: the free Fedora mark and the protected Fedora mark. Strictly speaking, what Diana has done, in releasing all of these wallpapers as CC-BY-NC-ND, is *not even legal* in cases where they are derived from the Fedora logo -- is it? If we had a Free Fedora Mark, then we could dual-license the mark *itself* as CC Attribution/ShareAlike, and then Red Hat owned. That way, RH would be free to use the Free Fedora Mark for any purpose, but any other wallpapers/backgrounds/anything else would *have* to be released CC-BY-SA. And then we're more careful with the Protected mark. Because here's the thing: until we do this, no one will ever be able to do anything cool with the Fedora mark, ever. And I think that sucks. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 12:24:29 +0100 From: Dimitris Glezos Reply-To: Discussions on expanding the Fedora user base To: Discussions on expanding the Fedora user base Subject: Re: [Fedora-marketing-list] Fedora Wallpapers O/H Nicolas Mailhot ??????: > Le dimanche 09 juillet 2006 ? 11:35 +0530, Tejas Dinkar a ?crit : >> Hey, I was reading dfong's blog, and I found she has made a huge >> collection of brilliant Fedora Wallpapers, that are liscenced under the >> Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License > > ... > >> My question is, should/do we have a page on the wiki dedicated to stuff >> like this? > > IMHO as long as the licensing is compatible, it should all end in a > fedora-extras package I believe that the CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License of Diana's work is not compatible because of the Non commercial and No derivatives clauses. We could ask her to consider dual-licencing the wallpapers under the FDL or something compatible. -Dim -- Dimitris Glezos Jabber ID: glezos at jabber.org, PGP: 0xA5A04C3B http://dimitris.glezos.com/ "He who gives up functionality for ease of use loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous) -- -- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list From tiemann at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 17:35:56 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:35:56 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152466556.4210.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 13:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > This really does sound like a fork situation. An abandonment may not be in > our best favor right now, but a fork to further develop how we see fit and > repair how we see fit w/out having to fight with unsavory upstream developers > may be the best technical solution. The perils of a soft fork...we're too far down the road now for that. There have been forks in the past that we re-merged down the road to the benefit of all. This might be one such case. Or it might be a case where we fork for good, for the benefit of all. But we clearly cannot remain engaged with the community if we're not transparent about our concerns or our plans of action to address those concerns, and they are telling us as much. M From gdk at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 17:34:12 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:34:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sunday 09 July 2006 13:05, Michael Tiemann wrote: > > Ugh indeed. ??But I take the other position--why is there no explanation > > from the Red Hat side as to why we're not following upstream? ??I think > > this is a case of "lead, follow, or get out of the way", and by taking > > no proactive position on the subject, we're being asked to follow or get > > out of the way. ??If we put a clear explanation why we're not following > > upstream, at least people would know where we stand and why. > > We've been selectively backporting the parts from upstream that make sense. > There are some changes that have gone into the upstream RPM releases that > we're really not comfortable consuming, such as soft requires (suggests, > recommends, enhances) stuff like that. I think there are many more examples > of feature sets that we're really not comfortable with, I don't have a list > in front of me. That "soft requires" is one of the key differences between rpm and deb. If jbj is trying to get rpm and deb closer, are we getting in the way of that perhaps-worthy goal by dragging our feet? > This really does sound like a fork situation. An abandonment may not be in > our best favor right now, but a fork to further develop how we see fit and > repair how we see fit w/out having to fight with unsavory upstream developers > may be the best technical solution. Then we need to have the sack to say "we're forking RPM," and take the abuse that comes with it. Because this half-assed selective uptake stuff is just making us look bad. So is Fedora the tail that wags the dog here? Do we just Take The Decision, or do we try to figure out why RH engineering is unwilling to take a public stance first? --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From jkeating at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 17:38:06 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:38:06 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200607091338.06650.jkeating@redhat.com> On Sunday 09 July 2006 13:34, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Then we need to have the sack to say "we're forking RPM," and take the > abuse that comes with it. ?Because this half-assed selective uptake stuff > is just making us look bad. > > So is Fedora the tail that wags the dog here? ?Do we just Take The > Decision, or do we try to figure out why RH engineering is unwilling to > take a public stance first? If I'm not mistaken, the Fedora Board was discussing this very issue on Friday. I overheard as much. I do not know what decisions were made, if any, perhaps it would be time to get a report from the board regarding this. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Sun Jul 9 18:12:03 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:12:03 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: >> We've been selectively backporting the parts from upstream that make sense. >> There are some changes that have gone into the upstream RPM releases that >> we're really not comfortable consuming, such as soft requires (suggests, >> recommends, enhances) stuff like that. I think there are many more examples >> of feature sets that we're really not comfortable with, I don't have a list >> in front of me. > > That "soft requires" is one of the key differences between rpm and deb. > If jbj is trying to get rpm and deb closer, are we getting in the way of > that perhaps-worthy goal by dragging our feet? IMO, there are a few features from upstream rpm that I would love Fedora to have, among them including "soft requires", sane(r) handling of dangling symlinks and unowned directories, automatic dependancy generation for libtool archives (and potentially corolary to that, pkg-config bits). -- Rex From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Jul 9 18:05:42 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:05:42 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <200607091338.06650.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <200607091338.06650.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152468342.20610.9.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 13:38 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sunday 09 July 2006 13:34, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Then we need to have the sack to say "we're forking RPM," and take the > > abuse that comes with it. Because this half-assed selective uptake stuff > > is just making us look bad. > > > > So is Fedora the tail that wags the dog here? Do we just Take The > > Decision, or do we try to figure out why RH engineering is unwilling to > > take a public stance first? > > If I'm not mistaken, the Fedora Board was discussing this very issue on > Friday. I overheard as much. I do not know what decisions were made, if > any, perhaps it would be time to get a report from the board regarding this. Yes, we are. Paul forwarded the bug to fbl and asked us for our opinion. We've discussed some. Speaking for myself a few others on the board (not for the board as a whole) I think the suggestion that makes most sense is stay where we are for fc6. It's too late in the cycle and the change to 4.4.6 is too disruptive for right now. Then in the next couple of months we make a decision on how we want to progress fedora package mgmt and put that in place for fc7. -sv From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Jul 9 18:06:53 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:06:53 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 13:12 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > >> We've been selectively backporting the parts from upstream that make sense. > >> There are some changes that have gone into the upstream RPM releases that > >> we're really not comfortable consuming, such as soft requires (suggests, > >> recommends, enhances) stuff like that. I think there are many more examples > >> of feature sets that we're really not comfortable with, I don't have a list > >> in front of me. > > > > That "soft requires" is one of the key differences between rpm and deb. > > If jbj is trying to get rpm and deb closer, are we getting in the way of > > that perhaps-worthy goal by dragging our feet? > > IMO, there are a few features from upstream rpm that I would love Fedora > to have, among them including "soft requires", sane(r) handling of > dangling symlinks and unowned directories, automatic dependancy > generation for libtool archives (and potentially corolary to that, > pkg-config bits). > And as I said before - the 'soft requires' need to have a lot of policy decided on before we throw them into the tree. Not only for kickstart but also for yum and policy for how things like 'enhances' will be moderated in extras. Doing it willy-nilly is a path to pain. -sv From rdieter at math.unl.edu Sun Jul 9 19:23:04 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:23:04 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> seth vidal wrote: > And as I said before - the 'soft requires' need to have a lot of policy > decided on before we throw them into the tree. Not only for kickstart > but also for yum and policy for how things like 'enhances' will be > moderated in extras. > Doing it willy-nilly is a path to pain. I'd argue that the rpm feature can be enabled asap/now (since, afaik, nothing uses it), then the technical details and policy can be hammered out, but that's just me. (: Regardless, I'll try to push this topic in the packaging comittee to at least try to lay some groundwork on the policy end of things. -- Rex From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Jul 9 19:30:27 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:30:27 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 14:23 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > > And as I said before - the 'soft requires' need to have a lot of policy > > decided on before we throw them into the tree. Not only for kickstart > > but also for yum and policy for how things like 'enhances' will be > > moderated in extras. > > Doing it willy-nilly is a path to pain. > > I'd argue that the rpm feature can be enabled asap/now (since, afaik, > nothing uses it), then the technical details and policy can be hammered > out, but that's just me. (: > Right b/c you won't be receiving the "why don't yum and anaconda support suggests/enhances" bug reports for ALL of the fc6 cycle. No thank you. I'd rather our package mgmt direction be a bit more organized than reactionary responses to something that gets added one afternoon. -sv From ville.skytta at iki.fi Sun Jul 9 19:26:56 2006 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:26:56 +0300 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1152473216.2728.447.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 14:23 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > > And as I said before - the 'soft requires' need to have a lot of policy > > decided on before we throw them into the tree. Not only for kickstart > > but also for yum and policy for how things like 'enhances' will be > > moderated in extras. > > Doing it willy-nilly is a path to pain. > > I'd argue that the rpm feature can be enabled asap/now (since, afaik, > nothing uses it), then the technical details and policy can be hammered > out, but that's just me. (: Is the "soft requires" feature just syntactic sugar for specfiles and another way of saying Requires(hint)/Requires(missingok) or something else? The latter is already being used in a bunch of FE packages, but I'm not quite up to date on how it's handled by rpm and friends in current FCx and devel nowadays. From rdieter at math.unl.edu Sun Jul 9 19:50:23 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:50:23 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <44B15DFF.1080508@math.unl.edu> seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 14:23 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >> I'd argue that the rpm feature can be enabled asap/now (since, afaik, >> nothing uses it), then the technical details and policy can be hammered >> out, but that's just me. (: > Right b/c you won't be receiving the "why don't yum and anaconda support > suggests/enhances" bug reports for ALL of the fc6 cycle. > > No thank you. No one is suggesting (esp not me) that this is be for fc6. Sorry, I guess my comment saying now/asap might imply that. It's definitely post fc6 (fc7+) territory. -- Rex From rdieter at math.unl.edu Sun Jul 9 19:51:29 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:51:29 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152473216.2728.447.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> <1152473216.2728.447.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44B15E41.8070906@math.unl.edu> Ville Skytt? wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 14:23 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >> seth vidal wrote: >> >>> And as I said before - the 'soft requires' need to have a lot of policy >>> decided on before we throw them into the tree. Not only for kickstart >>> but also for yum and policy for how things like 'enhances' will be >>> moderated in extras. >>> Doing it willy-nilly is a path to pain. >> I'd argue that the rpm feature can be enabled asap/now (since, afaik, >> nothing uses it), then the technical details and policy can be hammered >> out, but that's just me. (: > > Is the "soft requires" feature just syntactic sugar for specfiles and > another way of saying Requires(hint)/Requires(missingok) or something > else? AFAIK, yes. >The latter is already being used in a bunch of FE packages, but > I'm not quite up to date on how it's handled by rpm and friends in > current FCx and devel nowadays. AFAIK, rpm currently treats Requires(hint)/Requires(missingok) as a regular Requires. -- Rex From tiemann at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 19:49:23 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:49:23 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > I'd rather our package mgmt direction be a bit more organized than > reactionary responses to something that gets added one afternoon. I think there are two separate problems. The first, which may well be a fait accompli, is "which version of rpm should be in fc6?" The second, which concerns me greatly, is "how/why the heck did we act/not act so that we'd have no choice in this matter for fc6?" It looks to me from the time line of the bug report that we've had plenty of opportunity to hash out exactly how or whether we'd follow the upstream RPM path well in advance of the fc6 cutoff. Heck, it could have made fc5! But we, Red Hat, did not. And we did not say why not. And now it looks like it's too late, which means that a strategy of inaction and non-response worked to achieve a tactical agenda that somebody, I don't know who, is pursuing. Bully for them. But we owe it to ourselves and the community, whether or not we can change our decision about the rpm version packaged for fc6, to explain fully and faithfully exactly why we've chosen to extend our divergence from upstream. I don't think an implicit "deal with it" is going to cut it. M From kwade at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 21:28:49 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 14:28:49 -0700 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 13:26 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > This, to me, is a perfect example of why we *need* two marks: the free > Fedora mark and the protected Fedora mark. Are these visually the same mark or different? I'm confused by the terminology a bit. > Strictly speaking, what Diana has done, in releasing all of these > wallpapers as CC-BY-NC-ND, is *not even legal* in cases where they are > derived from the Fedora logo -- is it? > > If we had a Free Fedora Mark, then we could dual-license the mark *itself* > as CC Attribution/ShareAlike, and then Red Hat owned. That way, RH would > be free to use the Free Fedora Mark for any purpose, but any other > wallpapers/backgrounds/anything else would *have* to be released CC-BY-SA. I'm sure Mark will speak up if this concerns him, but I'll at least raise what I understood to be the last legal word on the CC, "Not without a warranty protection." IANAL, TINLA, just reporting on my understanding of acceptable Fedora Project licenses. Which makes perfect sense to me, BTW. Don't ask how art can put a company at warranty risk, people have creative ways of litigating in this country. We're a little jammed, though, in that there is not a good enough art license. The OPL is book specific, although perhaps if we put the reference paragraph in the image metadata itself? I'm glad we don't maintain our own OSI-compliant license, like everyone else does when they get in this jam. Can we work with Creative Commons to get the warranty provision resolved, or have them create a new license, CC-BY-SA-NW (no warranty)? - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Jul 9 22:15:50 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:45:50 +0530 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <44B18016.7020703@fedoraproject.org> Karsten Wade wrote: > > We're a little jammed, though, in that there is not a good enough art > license. The OPL is book specific, although perhaps if we put the > reference paragraph in the image metadata itself? > > I'm glad we don't maintain our own OSI-compliant license, like everyone > else does when they get in this jam. Can we work with Creative Commons > to get the warranty provision resolved, or have them create a new > license, CC-BY-SA-NW (no warranty)? > > - Karsten This is exactly what I suggested when the OPL relicensing of Fedora Docs policy was being discussed earlier. We really should fix the warranty issue with Creative Commons. We have a good relationship with them already. Rahul From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Jul 9 23:04:39 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:04:39 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1152486280.20610.24.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:49 -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > I'd rather our package mgmt direction be a bit more organized than > > reactionary responses to something that gets added one afternoon. > > I think there are two separate problems. The first, which may well be a > fait accompli, is "which version of rpm should be in fc6?" The second, > which concerns me greatly, is "how/why the heck did we act/not act so > that we'd have no choice in this matter for fc6?" > > It looks to me from the time line of the bug report that we've had > plenty of opportunity to hash out exactly how or whether we'd follow the > upstream RPM path well in advance of the fc6 cutoff. Heck, it could > have made fc5! But we, Red Hat, did not. And we did not say why not. > And now it looks like it's too late, which means that a strategy of > inaction and non-response worked to achieve a tactical agenda that > somebody, I don't know who, is pursuing. Bully for them. But we owe it > to ourselves and the community, whether or not we can change our > decision about the rpm version packaged for fc6, to explain fully and > faithfully exactly why we've chosen to extend our divergence from > upstream. I don't think an implicit "deal with it" is going to cut it. > In my opinion the reasons we can give for not implementing it are: 1. the policy decisions for automated action are not simple and not hashed out, yet. 2. the primary focus for fc5 was making anaconda and yum play nicely together. Adding some changes to rpm would have simply been too much work 3. rpm is a major, major component of how the distro does what it does, changes to rpm should be ultraconservative which don't seem to be the case with all the new bits being added to the 4.4.X releases as it goes along (YAML for no apparent reason, for example). If we change rpm we have to check a bunch of components b/c of how deeply rpm is rooted into things. This is only my opinion - but the board is still discussing this on the board list. I'm pretty sure it's on the agenda for the next conference call. I'll make sure we come to an answer by then - however it is really an issue for the fedora core steering committee/cabal and it sounds like to me they've already decided for this release as is evidenced in the rawhide trees. Does this make sense to you? -sv From jkeating at redhat.com Sun Jul 9 23:12:38 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:12:38 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> On Sunday 09 July 2006 15:49, Michael Tiemann wrote: > I think there are two separate problems. ?The first, which may well be a > fait accompli, is "which version of rpm should be in fc6?" ?The second, > which concerns me greatly, is "how/why the heck did we act/not act so > that we'd have no choice in this matter for fc6?" Really there are two issues. 1) Are we going to use the latest upstream rpm version? 2) Are we going to continue using upstream rpm at all? #1 is pretty easy to answer from a technical POV. The goals we've had for FC5 and FC6 are of a nature that would not mesh well with a new major version of RPM which includes some pretty major changes. Add to the mix a release of RHEL being based nearly completely on what we do in FC6, overhauling rpm itself was just way too daunting of a task. We just don't have the resources for that kind of thing amidst all the other things we're trying to accomplish for FC6/RHEL5. This decision was pretty much made by the major players involved. The Red Hat rpm maintainer, the technical lead for Fedora, the technical team around RHEL, and in part the release engineering folks (as we play with rpm to!) #2 is a far more complicated question, one that SHOULD involve the board and the community, and is noted to be on the boards plate. Should we make an 'official' statement with regard to RPM for FC6? Maybe. We've pretty much done so given that next week is the feature freeze and we've not put a new rpm in rawhide. I'm not the person to make such an announcement though. I'll leave that up to whomever. How we got to this point was the goals we had in mind for this release and last. They were incompatible with a major change to RPM. Plain and simple. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 00:20:28 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:20:28 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152486280.20610.24.camel@cutter> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1152486280.20610.24.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1152490828.1484.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:04 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:49 -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 15:30 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > > > I'd rather our package mgmt direction be a bit more organized than > > > reactionary responses to something that gets added one afternoon. > > > > I think there are two separate problems. The first, which may well be a > > fait accompli, is "which version of rpm should be in fc6?" The second, > > which concerns me greatly, is "how/why the heck did we act/not act so > > that we'd have no choice in this matter for fc6?" > > > > It looks to me from the time line of the bug report that we've had > > plenty of opportunity to hash out exactly how or whether we'd follow the > > upstream RPM path well in advance of the fc6 cutoff. Heck, it could > > have made fc5! But we, Red Hat, did not. And we did not say why not. > > And now it looks like it's too late, which means that a strategy of > > inaction and non-response worked to achieve a tactical agenda that > > somebody, I don't know who, is pursuing. Bully for them. But we owe it > > to ourselves and the community, whether or not we can change our > > decision about the rpm version packaged for fc6, to explain fully and > > faithfully exactly why we've chosen to extend our divergence from > > upstream. I don't think an implicit "deal with it" is going to cut it. > > > > In my opinion the reasons we can give for not implementing it are: > > 1. the policy decisions for automated action are not simple and not > hashed out, yet. > > 2. the primary focus for fc5 was making anaconda and yum play nicely > together. Adding some changes to rpm would have simply been too much > work > > 3. rpm is a major, major component of how the distro does what it does, > changes to rpm should be ultraconservative which don't seem to be the > case with all the new bits being added to the 4.4.X releases as it goes > along (YAML for no apparent reason, for example). If we change rpm we > have to check a bunch of components b/c of how deeply rpm is rooted into > things. +1 on each. Thanks for porting this out from the board list, Seth. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 00:24:20 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 05:54:20 +0530 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> Karsten Wade wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 13:26 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: >> This, to me, is a perfect example of why we *need* two marks: the free >> Fedora mark and the protected Fedora mark. > > Are these visually the same mark or different? I'm confused by the > terminology a bit. They would have to look different obviously. Something like http://www.us.debian.org/logos/. Unfortunately that dilutes the brand. The official Debian logo uses the same swirl as the open use logo to try and avoid this issue. Rahul From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 00:29:31 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:29:31 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:24, Rahul wrote: > They would have to look different obviously. Something like > http://www.us.debian.org/logos/. Unfortunately that dilutes the brand. > The official Debian logo uses the same swirl as the open use logo to try > and avoid this issue. Interesting. Until this moment, I had _never_ seen "official" debian logo. I've only ever seen the open one. Is that what we want for Fedora too? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tiemann at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 00:31:52 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:31:52 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152486280.20610.24.camel@cutter> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1152486280.20610.24.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1152491513.4210.82.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:04 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > [...] > This is only my opinion - but the board is still discussing this on the > board list. I'm pretty sure it's on the agenda for the next conference > call. I'll make sure we come to an answer by then - however it is really > an issue for the fedora core steering committee/cabal and it sounds like > to me they've already decided for this release as is evidenced in the > rawhide trees. > > Does this make sense to you? Yes. When Fedora was initially conceived, and there wasn't quiet the amount of forkage between Red Hat Linux, Enterprise Linux, Fedora, and upstream (relative to *now*), it was easy to approximate Fedora Core package versions as 'the latest versions that are reasonably *working* (not stable, as in unchanging, but working). I toured the world explaining this distinction as "Fedora is the best of what works today. Enterprise Linux is the best of what will work for the next seven years," and it was very well received. Time has passed. Fedora and Enterprise Linux have each built their own track records. Fedora has proved to be an extremely valuable mechanism for evaluating and rapidly maturing upstream technologies into stuff we can use (or know not to use) for Enterprise Linux. Look at how fastly and loosely (and successfully) we played with GNOME versions to get the latest and greatest into FC(n). I am convinced that without Fedora, the integration of SE Linux into Enterprise Linux, thereby making it the most mainstream high-grade security platform to date, would have been impossible. The Fedora project is a winner and I am very proud what what we all have done together. But now the approximation is not so easy. It seems that a third criterion has crept into the mix, one which now places Fedora in a much more distinctive place between upstream and stable. A place that will become even more distinctive with time. And while I am glad to know that the board/cabal is earnestly holding discussions that weigh on this criterion with respect to upstream (or not) rpm, I'm getting the sense of deja vu that we will once again exclude the community--in this case upstream developers--in a way that's going to give us another painful rift to heal. And if you tell me "we're already thinking about that", I'll say "great. I hope to see that thinking published soon." And if I don't see it soon, I'll worry even more. M From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Jul 10 00:38:28 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:38:28 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:12 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > Really there are two issues. Three. > > 1) Are we going to use the latest upstream rpm version? > > 2) Are we going to continue using upstream rpm at all? > #2 is a far more complicated question, one that SHOULD involve the board and > the community, and is noted to be on the boards plate. Good to know. > How we got to this point was the goals we had in mind for this release and > last. They were incompatible with a major change to RPM. Plain and simple. And that brings up 3. 3) Communication on such things with the community. The above is a perfectly valid statement as to why RPM has not been upgraded in Core. Why couldn't someone simply add a comment to the bug saying so? Instead, it was left completely unanswered until it turned into the flamefest it is now. josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 01:13:45 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 06:43:45 +0530 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152491513.4210.82.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1152486280.20610.24.camel@cutter> <1152491513.4210.82.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44B1A9C9.3040002@fedoraproject.org> Michael Tiemann wrote: > > Yes. > > When Fedora was initially conceived, and there wasn't quiet the amount > of forkage between Red Hat Linux, Enterprise Linux, Fedora, and upstream > (relative to *now*), it was easy to approximate Fedora Core package > versions as 'the latest versions that are reasonably *working* (not > stable, as in unchanging, but working). I toured the world explaining > this distinction as "Fedora is the best of what works today. Enterprise > Linux is the best of what will work for the next seven years," and it > was very well received. > > Time has passed. Fedora and Enterprise Linux have each built their own > track records. Fedora has proved to be an extremely valuable mechanism > for evaluating and rapidly maturing upstream technologies into stuff we > can use (or know not to use) for Enterprise Linux. Look at how fastly > and loosely (and successfully) we played with GNOME versions to get the > latest and greatest into FC(n). I am convinced that without Fedora, the > integration of SE Linux into Enterprise Linux, thereby making it the > most mainstream high-grade security platform to date, would have been > impossible. The Fedora project is a winner and I am very proud what > what we all have done together. > > But now the approximation is not so easy. It seems that a third > criterion has crept into the mix, one which now places Fedora in a much > more distinctive place between upstream and stable. I would say that the definition of "working" still applies. Simply shipping the latest RPM package wouldnt really work. It would depend on packaging policies and changes in yum and Anaconda. It might have been completed a bit earlier but thats a matter of priorities. A place that will > become even more distinctive with time. And while I am glad to know > that the board/cabal is earnestly holding discussions that weigh on this > criterion with respect to upstream (or not) rpm, I'm getting the sense > of deja vu that we will once again exclude the community--in this case > upstream developers--in a way that's going to give us another painful > rift to heal. And if you tell me "we're already thinking about that", > I'll say "great. I hope to see that thinking published soon." And if I > don't see it soon, I'll worry even more. > > M The thinking is already published in a earlier mail send by Seth Vidal. I dont think there is much more to add in this matter. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 01:15:48 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 06:45:48 +0530 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <44B1AA44.9010902@fedoraproject.org> Josh Boyer wrote: > 3) Communication on such things with the community. > > The above is a perfectly valid statement as to why RPM has not been > upgraded in Core. Why couldn't someone simply add a comment to the bug > saying so? Instead, it was left completely unanswered until it turned > into the flamefest it is now. > Thats a valid point. I brought this exact issue along with many others with reference to the RPM bug report to Max Spevack in a chat earlier and that was followed by a mail to the board. We were still discussing this when this thread started. Rahul From tiemann at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 01:20:31 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:20:31 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <44B1A9C9.3040002@fedoraproject.org> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152464750.4210.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091323.09355.jkeating@redhat.com> <44B146F3.1040002@math.unl.edu> <1152468414.20610.12.camel@cutter> <44B15798.7080206@math.unl.edu> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1152486280.20610.24.camel@cutter> <1152491513.4210.82.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44B1A9C9.3040002@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1152494431.4210.95.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 06:43 +0530, Rahul wrote: > The thinking is already published in a earlier mail send by Seth Vidal. > I dont think there is much more to add in this matter. Excellent--thanks. I'll shut up now. M From smooge at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 02:46:47 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:46:47 -0600 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <80d7e4090607091946k335b26c0wab97348f5b51f2e@mail.gmail.com> On 7/9/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:12 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > Really there are two issues. > And that brings up 3. > > 3) Communication on such things with the community. > > The above is a perfectly valid statement as to why RPM has not been > upgraded in Core. Why couldn't someone simply add a comment to the bug > saying so? Instead, it was left completely unanswered until it turned > into the flamefest it is now. > I can tell from longer history, that this has come up in 'lessons learned' since at least 1998.. and keeps coming up. It has always been "next time we will communicate better" but something always comes up and there is always a good list of reasons why communication broke down again (lack of people, extra demands on engineers, etc.). At this point, I would have to say the problem needs serious management power aimed at it with it being put as a priority. A developer can only deal with so many issues (features, bugs, packages, upstream communication, downstream communication) and the company has to manage that number or it will end up with burnt out developers, poor community relations, and tanking sales. I think this is from the Navy SeaBees: The engineers will forget that they are draining a swamp.. it is up to management to prioritize which alligators get shot. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 02:55:06 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:55:06 -0700 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152500106.29925.57.camel@erato.phig.org> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 20:29 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:24, Rahul wrote: > > They would have to look different obviously. Something like > > http://www.us.debian.org/logos/. Unfortunately that dilutes the brand. > > The official Debian logo uses the same swirl as the open use logo to try > > and avoid this issue. > > Interesting. Until this moment, I had _never_ seen "official" debian logo. > I've only ever seen the open one. Is that what we want for Fedora too? +1 I had the same experience, never seen the official one before. -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 02:56:11 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:56:11 -0700 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <44B18016.7020703@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B18016.7020703@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1152500171.29925.60.camel@erato.phig.org> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 03:45 +0530, Rahul wrote: > This is exactly what I suggested when the OPL relicensing of Fedora Docs > policy was being discussed earlier. We really should fix the warranty > issue with Creative Commons. We have a good relationship with them already. Well, we had enough dragons to slay at that time. Fortunately, now that everyone has to sign the CLA, we can add such a fixed CC license easily. :) - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 02:57:10 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:27:10 +0530 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <1152500106.29925.57.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152500106.29925.57.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <44B1C206.9050402@fedoraproject.org> Karsten Wade wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 20:29 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:24, Rahul wrote: >>> They would have to look different obviously. Something like >>> http://www.us.debian.org/logos/. Unfortunately that dilutes the brand. >>> The official Debian logo uses the same swirl as the open use logo to try >>> and avoid this issue. >> Interesting. Until this moment, I had _never_ seen "official" debian logo. >> I've only ever seen the open one. Is that what we want for Fedora too? > > +1 I had the same experience, never seen the official one before. > That was what I was referring to earlier as brand dilution. Rahul From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Mon Jul 10 03:23:10 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:23:10 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090607091946k335b26c0wab97348f5b51f2e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <80d7e4090607091946k335b26c0wab97348f5b51f2e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1152501790.20610.34.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 20:46 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I can tell from longer history, that this has come up in 'lessons > learned' since at least 1998.. and keeps coming up. It has always been > "next time we will communicate better" but something always comes up > and there is always a good list of reasons why communication broke > down again (lack of people, extra demands on engineers, etc.). At this > point, I would have to say the problem needs serious management power > aimed at it with it being put as a priority. A developer can only deal > with so many issues (features, bugs, packages, upstream communication, > downstream communication) and the company has to manage that number or > it will end up with burnt out developers, poor community relations, > and tanking sales. > I have a problem with this statement. This issue was brought to the board on friday. We've had all of 2 days to discuss and I'd like for there to be a board meeting before we make a final statement. It's hard to communicate an answer to a problem when we didn't really know there was one. Its one package out of what? 3000? And it's one bug out of 150K? How do you think this should have been handled? A problem has been happening in a bug in bugzilla The maintainer didn't know what the best answer was so he brought it to the board We've been discussing it and will come up with something shortly. why is this not communicating? How did we fail to communicate? -sv From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Mon Jul 10 03:31:31 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 23:31:31 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1152502291.20610.38.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:38 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 19:12 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > Really there are two issues. > > Three. > > > > > 1) Are we going to use the latest upstream rpm version? > > > > 2) Are we going to continue using upstream rpm at all? > > > > > #2 is a far more complicated question, one that SHOULD involve the board and > > the community, and is noted to be on the boards plate. > > Good to know. > > > How we got to this point was the goals we had in mind for this release and > > last. They were incompatible with a major change to RPM. Plain and simple. > > And that brings up 3. > > 3) Communication on such things with the community. > > The above is a perfectly valid statement as to why RPM has not been > upgraded in Core. Why couldn't someone simply add a comment to the bug > saying so? Instead, it was left completely unanswered until it turned > into the flamefest it is now. > Paul asked the board for a comment. We're still discussing it. That's about all it is. -sv From smooge at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 14:12:11 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:12:11 -0600 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152501790.20610.34.camel@cutter> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <80d7e4090607091946k335b26c0wab97348f5b51f2e@mail.gmail.com> <1152501790.20610.34.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <80d7e4090607100712i65e303cfkc5c704b41eb12722@mail.gmail.com> On 7/9/06, seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 20:46 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > I can tell from longer history, that this has come up in 'lessons > > learned' since at least 1998.. and keeps coming up. It has always been > > "next time we will communicate better" but something always comes up > > and there is always a good list of reasons why communication broke > > down again (lack of people, extra demands on engineers, etc.). At this > > point, I would have to say the problem needs serious management power > > aimed at it with it being put as a priority. A developer can only deal > > with so many issues (features, bugs, packages, upstream communication, > > downstream communication) and the company has to manage that number or > > it will end up with burnt out developers, poor community relations, > > and tanking sales. > > > > I have a problem with this statement. > > This issue was brought to the board on friday. We've had all of 2 days > to discuss and I'd like for there to be a board meeting before we make a > final statement. > Sorry, I am trying to show a systematic problem with communication that needs to be looked at by the board. It is a problem that has been brought up internally multiple times at RH when I was there.. and your answer is pretty much the stock one: "We just got this problem, and have had 2 days to fix it... " I am talking about a general problem with communication. The bug was opened in November of 2005. There was no communication until it was closed from Red Hat other than marking a bug duplicate. I have a couple of bugs in the same condition from RHL 8.0. [The problem may be that there isnt a significant organization memory to > It's hard to communicate an answer to a problem when we didn't really > know there was one. Its one package out of what? 3000? And it's one bug > out of 150K? > I do not know how many bugs it is currently. When I did a close-a-thon of bugs during the end of RHL, the number was in the hundreds of open bugs in the NEW condition that had no developer interaction. Currently while there are over 5000 NEW bugs in bugzilla I would say about 2000 of them look over 6 months old. > How do you think this should have been handled? > Well, my point of view is from a service background so my view towards customer interaction/satisfaction is where I come from. Bug reports are as much a public face of Fedora/RH as the website. A customer should get some sort of interaction from an official person within 7 working days. This can just be a triage of: Thanks for the report, it looks to be a duplicate of XYZ so I am combining it in this report. Will have to work with the upstream maintainer on getting this fixed. It may take a while to get a proper fix though so this bug may go into hiatus for a while. This looks to be a feature request that would have to be in a future release. Will put on as a 'blocker' for project management to look at. Thanks for the report, currently engineering is having to concentrate on work in , and are needing to keep RPM in a conservative mode. We are backporting changes from upstream RPM that does not overly change the behavior of RPM-4.2. We are looking to focus on a major change to RPM in a future release. > A problem has been happening in a bug in bugzilla > > The maintainer didn't know what the best answer was so he brought it to > the board > > We've been discussing it and will come up with something shortly. > > why is this not communicating? How did we fail to communicate? > Ok the issue for me is trying to say that communication delays/failure have been a long term problem. Each time a new organization management comes in and says they will deal with it but seem to focus on the particular crisis versus the entire problem. Then a new group comes in and we repeat, lather, rinse. I should have phrased my earlier email differently, but what I am trying to do is act as a memory unit: Bugs take a long time to get interaction, people get pissed, community problems surface, and 'management' reacts. In this case, management realizes this has occured in the past, and can 'act' in a way to study and cure the larger problem versus one aimed at specifically at RPM. Does that clear up what I am trying to say? -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From amaier at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 14:44:38 2006 From: amaier at redhat.com (Alex Maier) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:44:38 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <44B1C206.9050402@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152500106.29925.57.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B1C206.9050402@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1152542678.4244.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 08:27 +0530, Rahul wrote: > That was what I was referring to earlier as brand dilution. Allow me to respectfully disagree. Brand dilution will not happen from giving the community a logo they can legally play and get creative with. It will rather happen if we do not, and the community has either one of two choices: 1. Use our one and only logo illegally, i.e. without our permission, and in contexts where we would rather not have it used; 2. Come up with their own version, which we all know can involve puppies wearing blue hats. If we provide a sane framework for Fedora logo use, we will only strengthen our brand. Or have you had any difficulty recognizing the Debian logo and what it stands for? Cheers, a Alex Maier Red Hat---Sr Marketing Specialist 1801 Varsity Dr, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA Direct: +1 919 754 4004 Mobile: +1 919 455 8330 From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 14:48:41 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:18:41 +0530 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <1152542678.4244.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152500106.29925.57.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B1C206.9050402@fedoraproject.org> <1152542678.4244.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44B268C9.8060802@fedoraproject.org> Alex Maier wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 08:27 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> That was what I was referring to earlier as brand dilution. > > Allow me to respectfully disagree. Brand dilution will not happen from > giving the community a logo they can legally play and get creative with. > It will rather happen if we do not, and the community has either one of > two choices: > > 1. Use our one and only logo illegally, i.e. without our > permission, and in contexts where we would rather not have it > used; > > 2. Come up with their own version, which we all know can involve > puppies wearing blue hats. > > If we provide a sane framework for Fedora logo use, we will only > strengthen our brand. Except that noone would bother applying for permission to use the official logo and would just use the "open" logo for all purposes. What is the use of having a official logo nobody is going to associate with Fedora easily? > > Or have you had any difficulty recognizing the Debian logo and what it > stands for? > The official Debian logo would be totally unrecognizable without the tagging in the open use logo as part of it. Seriously, how many people have ever seen it being used with Debian? Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 14:53:02 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:23:02 +0530 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090607100712i65e303cfkc5c704b41eb12722@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <80d7e4090607091946k335b26c0wab97348f5b51f2e@mail.gmail.com> <1152501790.20610.34.camel@cutter> <80d7e4090607100712i65e303cfkc5c704b41eb12722@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44B269CE.4030306@fedoraproject.org> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> why is this not communicating? How did we fail to communicate? >> > > Ok the issue for me is trying to say that communication delays/failure > have been a long term problem. Each time a new organization management > comes in and says they will deal with it but seem to focus on the > particular crisis versus the entire problem. Then a new group comes in > and we repeat, lather, rinse. I should have phrased my earlier email > differently, but what I am trying to do is act as a memory unit: > > Bugs take a long time to get interaction, people get pissed, community > problems surface, and 'management' reacts. In this case, management > realizes this has occured in the past, and can 'act' in a way to study > and cure the larger problem versus one aimed at specifically at RPM. > > Does that clear up what I am trying to say? > We already know that bugzilla feedback is far from ideal. We have a QA lead now to lead this triaging effort and we need many more from the community to contribute. The only way to fix that problem is to participate and help. Still, having a bugzilla report filed on 2005-11-27 go without a single response from the package owner till date is not very reasonable and Fedora Board cannot micro manage at this level. Rahul From smooge at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 15:00:42 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:00:42 -0600 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <44B268C9.8060802@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152500106.29925.57.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B1C206.9050402@fedoraproject.org> <1152542678.4244.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44B268C9.8060802@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <80d7e4090607100800g1cc34942x7bf1d1071d7fe67d@mail.gmail.com> On 7/10/06, Rahul wrote: > Alex Maier wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 08:27 +0530, Rahul wrote: > >> That was what I was referring to earlier as brand dilution. > > > > Allow me to respectfully disagree. Brand dilution will not happen from > > giving the community a logo they can legally play and get creative with. > > It will rather happen if we do not, and the community has either one of > > two choices: > > > > 1. Use our one and only logo illegally, i.e. without our > > permission, and in contexts where we would rather not have it > > used; > > > > 2. Come up with their own version, which we all know can involve > > puppies wearing blue hats. > > > > If we provide a sane framework for Fedora logo use, we will only > > strengthen our brand. > > Except that noone would bother applying for permission to use the > official logo and would just use the "open" logo for all purposes. What > is the use of having a official logo nobody is going to associate with > Fedora easily? > So the question is: How does one apply for permission to use the official logo and how do they use it without diluting the trademark? > > > > Or have you had any difficulty recognizing the Debian logo and what it > > stands for? > > > > The official Debian logo would be totally unrecognizable without the > tagging in the open use logo as part of it. Seriously, how many people > have ever seen it being used with Debian? > I had NEVER seen the lamp until it was pointed out in this list. I thought the Swirl was Debian.. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 15:03:00 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:33:00 +0530 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090607100800g1cc34942x7bf1d1071d7fe67d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152500106.29925.57.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B1C206.9050402@fedoraproject.org> <1152542678.4244.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44B268C9.8060802@fedoraproject.org> <80d7e4090607100800g1cc34942x7bf1d1071d7fe67d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44B26C24.1070904@fedoraproject.org> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > So the question is: How does one apply for permission to use the > official logo and how do they use it without diluting the trademark? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo. Not very scalable. Rahul From fedora at leemhuis.info Mon Jul 10 16:33:17 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:33:17 +0200 Subject: time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee"? (was Re: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available) In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090607100712i65e303cfkc5c704b41eb12722@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <80d7e4090607091946k335b26c0wab97348f5b51f2e@mail.gmail.com> <1152501790.20610.34.camel@cutter> <80d7e4090607100712i65e303cfkc5c704b41eb12722@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44B2814D.1010607@leemhuis.info> Stephen John Smoogen schrieb: > Sorry, I am trying to show a systematic problem with communication > that needs to be looked at by the board. It is a problem that has been > brought up internally multiple times at RH when I was there.. and your > answer is pretty much the stock one: "We just got this problem, and > have had 2 days to fix it... " > > I am talking about a general problem with communication. [...] Well, we have Fedora Extras, Ambassadors, Docs, Legacy -- all communicate in the open and have meetings on IRC. Summaries from the meetings get post to the list. But Core is still a black hole. No public meetings. No real discussion, things just happen and even I'm sometimes wondering how/when some things got decided. No real informations what is happening and what's planed, only some small things get to the public. No influence from the Community. In other words: Maybe it's time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee" that operates similar to FESCo? E.g. regular and public IRC meetings (where things like this RPM sage can be brought up and discussed), Meeting summaries, discussions on a public list (maybe it needs to be operate similar to FAB, e.g. invite only and a readonly archive for the public?) ...? It would be okay for me if only Red Hat people are on the "Fedora Core Steering Committee" for now until Extras and Core get closer together, but such a Committee would be start into the right direction IMHO. Just my 2 cent. And yes, I suspect some Core developers won't like that idea very much because it's probably a lot more operation overhead... Cu thl From blizzard at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 16:38:16 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:38:16 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44B28278.2060509@redhat.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sunday 09 July 2006 20:24, Rahul wrote: >> They would have to look different obviously. Something like >> http://www.us.debian.org/logos/. Unfortunately that dilutes the brand. >> The official Debian logo uses the same swirl as the open use logo to try >> and avoid this issue. > > Interesting. Until this moment, I had _never_ seen "official" debian logo. > I've only ever seen the open one. Is that what we want for Fedora too? Had this discussion at the GNOME advisory board meeting. Apparently there is an official debian logo, it's just that no one uses it. --Chris From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 17:07:02 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:07:02 -0400 Subject: time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee"? (was Re: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available) In-Reply-To: <44B2814D.1010607@leemhuis.info> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <80d7e4090607100712i65e303cfkc5c704b41eb12722@mail.gmail.com> <44B2814D.1010607@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <200607101307.02946.jkeating@redhat.com> On Monday 10 July 2006 12:33, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > In other words: Maybe it's time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee" > that operates similar to FESCo? E.g. regular and public IRC meetings > (where things like this RPM sage can be brought up and discussed), > Meeting summaries, discussions on a public list (maybe it needs to be > operate similar to FAB, e.g. invite only and a readonly archive for the > public?) ...? It would be okay for me if only Red Hat people are on the > "Fedora Core Steering Committee" for now until Extras and Core get > closer together, but such a Committee would be start into the right > direction IMHO. > > Just my 2 cent. And yes, I suspect some Core developers won't like that > idea very much because it's probably a lot more operation overhead... This might not be a bad idea. In the past, the Fedora Board (under whatever name) was also the Core board. Now that Fedora is much larger, it does make sense to have a Core board that deals directly with Core, while the Fedora board deals with the project as a whole and issues escalated to it from the various subprojects. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From katzj at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 17:20:15 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:20:15 -0400 Subject: [fab] Re: time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee"? In-Reply-To: <200607101307.02946.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <80d7e4090607100712i65e303cfkc5c704b41eb12722@mail.gmail.com> <44B2814D.1010607@leemhuis.info> <200607101307.02946.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152552015.17553.21.camel@orodruin.boston.redhat.com> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 13:07 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 10 July 2006 12:33, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > In other words: Maybe it's time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee" > > that operates similar to FESCo? E.g. regular and public IRC meetings > > (where things like this RPM sage can be brought up and discussed), > > Meeting summaries, discussions on a public list (maybe it needs to be > > operate similar to FAB, e.g. invite only and a readonly archive for the > > public?) ...? It would be okay for me if only Red Hat people are on the > > "Fedora Core Steering Committee" for now until Extras and Core get > > closer together, but such a Committee would be start into the right > > direction IMHO. > > > > Just my 2 cent. And yes, I suspect some Core developers won't like that > > idea very much because it's probably a lot more operation overhead... > > This might not be a bad idea. In the past, the Fedora Board (under whatever > name) was also the Core board. Now that Fedora is much larger, it does make > sense to have a Core board that deals directly with Core, while the Fedora > board deals with the project as a whole and issues escalated to it from the > various subprojects. As it turns out, there was some discussion on the board list about this as well with the hope of talking about it in the next meeting. We're going to have a long meeting I think :-P Jeremy From gdk at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 17:28:37 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee"? (was Re: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available) In-Reply-To: <44B2814D.1010607@leemhuis.info> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <80d7e4090607091946k335b26c0wab97348f5b51f2e@mail.gmail.com> <1152501790.20610.34.camel@cutter> <80d7e4090607100712i65e303cfkc5c704b41eb12722@mail.gmail.com> <44B2814D.1010607@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen schrieb: > > Sorry, I am trying to show a systematic problem with communication > > that needs to be looked at by the board. It is a problem that has been > > brought up internally multiple times at RH when I was there.. and your > > answer is pretty much the stock one: "We just got this problem, and > > have had 2 days to fix it... " > > > > I am talking about a general problem with communication. [...] > > Well, we have Fedora Extras, Ambassadors, Docs, Legacy -- all > communicate in the open and have meetings on IRC. Summaries from the > meetings get post to the list. > > But Core is still a black hole. No public meetings. No real discussion, > things just happen and even I'm sometimes wondering how/when some things > got decided. No real informations what is happening and what's planed, > only some small things get to the public. No influence from the Community. > > In other words: Maybe it's time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee" > that operates similar to FESCo? E.g. regular and public IRC meetings > (where things like this RPM sage can be brought up and discussed), > Meeting summaries, discussions on a public list (maybe it needs to be > operate similar to FAB, e.g. invite only and a readonly archive for the > public?) ...? It would be okay for me if only Red Hat people are on the > "Fedora Core Steering Committee" for now until Extras and Core get > closer together, but such a Committee would be start into the right > direction IMHO. We've needed this for a long time. IIRC, one of the goals of the initial board was to produce this entity. We need an update. :) How's it going? --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 17:31:58 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:01:58 +0530 Subject: time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee"? (was Re: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available) In-Reply-To: References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1152473428.20610.15.camel@cutter> <1152474564.4210.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200607091912.42192.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152491908.3171.8.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <80d7e4090607091946k335b26c0wab97348f5b51f2e@mail.gmail.com> <1152501790.20610.34.camel@cutter> <80d7e4090607100712i65e303cfkc5c704b41eb12722@mail.gmail.com> <44B2814D.1010607@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <44B28F0E.7040404@fedoraproject.org> Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> >> In other words: Maybe it's time for a "Fedora Core Steering Committee" >> that operates similar to FESCo? E.g. regular and public IRC meetings >> (where things like this RPM sage can be brought up and discussed), >> Meeting summaries, discussions on a public list (maybe it needs to be >> operate similar to FAB, e.g. invite only and a readonly archive for the >> public?) ...? It would be okay for me if only Red Hat people are on the >> "Fedora Core Steering Committee" for now until Extras and Core get >> closer together, but such a Committee would be start into the right >> direction IMHO. > > We've needed this for a long time. IIRC, one of the goals of the initial > board was to produce this entity. > > We need an update. :) How's it going? > Really? I never knew it was the goal. What other goals are there? Rahul From amaier at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 18:04:29 2006 From: amaier at redhat.com (Alex Maier) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:04:29 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <44B26C24.1070904@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152480530.29925.46.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B19E34.20209@fedoraproject.org> <200607092029.31546.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152500106.29925.57.camel@erato.phig.org> <44B1C206.9050402@fedoraproject.org> <1152542678.4244.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44B268C9.8060802@fedoraproject.org> <80d7e4090607100800g1cc34942x7bf1d1071d7fe67d@mail.gmail.com> <44B26C24.1070904@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1152554669.4244.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 20:33 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > So the question is: How does one apply for permission to use the > > official logo and how do they use it without diluting the trademark? > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo. Not very scalable. > That's the cool thing about creative solutions--they're not obvious, until they're there. I believe if the dual logo model works for Debian, we will find a way to make it work for us. Strict controls on the other hand cannot work with a community of volunteers, unless you wish to scare them off. I would leave the creation of Open Use logo to professionals who designed the Official Use logo to begin with, and I am certain they can do a good job at it. Cheers, a Alex Maier Red Hat---Sr Marketing Specialist 1801 Varsity Dr, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA Direct: +1 919 754 4004 Mobile: +1 919 455 8330 From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 19:48:51 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:18:51 +0530 Subject: [fab] Fedora Directory Server - Whats happening? Message-ID: <44B2AF23.70600@fedoraproject.org> Hi So its been a while (September 2004 since Red Hat spend around 25 million dollars freeing Netscape directory server and releasing it under the Fedora universe. Unfortunately the team build up their own wiki (http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page) for no obvious reason and despite havent been able to run it under GCJ for a while havent submitted the package yet to review and include it in either Fedora Core or Extras repository. We need to follow up on this and get this done. Rahul From blizzard at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 19:54:07 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:54:07 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Directory Server - Whats happening? In-Reply-To: <44B2AF23.70600@fedoraproject.org> References: <44B2AF23.70600@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <44B2B05F.2040402@redhat.com> Rahul wrote: > Hi > > So its been a while (September 2004 since Red Hat spend around 25 > million dollars freeing Netscape directory server and releasing it under > the Fedora universe. > > Unfortunately the team build up their own wiki > (http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page) for no obvious > reason and despite havent been able to run it under GCJ for a while > havent submitted the package yet to review and include it in either > Fedora Core or Extras repository. > That was my fault since I jump started them. At the time, it was believed that we would have a bunch of little projects building up around the Fedora name. And each would have their own little site for hosting, etc. --Chris From smooge at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 19:59:14 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:59:14 -0600 Subject: [fab] Fedora Directory Server - Whats happening? In-Reply-To: <44B2B05F.2040402@redhat.com> References: <44B2AF23.70600@fedoraproject.org> <44B2B05F.2040402@redhat.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090607101259u3ce73d5cu5a4ca09a25d0be54@mail.gmail.com> On 7/10/06, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Rahul wrote: > > Hi > > > > So its been a while (September 2004 since Red Hat spend around 25 > > million dollars freeing Netscape directory server and releasing it under > > the Fedora universe. > > > > Unfortunately the team build up their own wiki > > (http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page) for no obvious > > reason and despite havent been able to run it under GCJ for a while > > havent submitted the package yet to review and include it in either > > Fedora Core or Extras repository. > > > > That was my fault since I jump started them. At the time, it was > believed that we would have a bunch of little projects building up > around the Fedora name. And each would have their own little site for > hosting, etc. > Bad Blizzard. Bad.. no cookie for you! What would be the best to help better integrate the two together again? > --Chris > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 19:59:57 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:59:57 -0400 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem Message-ID: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> Since we're on the subject of communication problems, as well as loading up on issues for the next meeting, let me point out another large safari animal camped out in the living room watching the big-screen HDTV. Observations: 1. We (Docs) were "promised" (well, maybe not promised, but certainly a commitment was made) OPL'd versions of Red Hat documentation to seed an upswing in Fedora Docs work. Creating this stuff from scratch is damn difficult work, and this was going to benefit Fedora and Red Hat equally, since the community can keep it up to date at a more rapid pace. Not only have we not received anything, but there's no word on when it will happen. 2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a gateway or integration with the translation system (i18n.redhat.com) for docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community translators to learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are already giving so much of their time. Again, no word. 3. The Translation management (same team?) is not responding to our repeated queries for help getting the release notes into i18n.redhat.com for this test cycle from now (FC6t2) until FC6 gold, notwithstanding #2 above. Karsten has posted these requests on f-trans-l and there's nothing but silence from the other end. We're also not getting any response on status, and my understanding is both Karsten and Rahul have pinged people about this stuff several times without results. If I've misstated anything here, I hope either or both of them will step in and correct me. Otherwise, it's time to take this issue to the next level. Comments? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 20:20:19 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:50:19 +0530 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44B2B683.2010809@fedoraproject.org> Paul W. Frields wrote: > Since we're on the subject of communication problems, as well as loading > up on issues for the next meeting, let me point out another large safari > animal camped out in the living room watching the big-screen HDTV. > Observations: > > 1. We (Docs) were "promised" (well, maybe not promised, but certainly a > commitment was made) OPL'd versions of Red Hat documentation to seed an > upswing in Fedora Docs work. Creating this stuff from scratch is damn > difficult work, and this was going to benefit Fedora and Red Hat > equally, since the community can keep it up to date at a more rapid > pace. Not only have we not received anything, but there's no word on > when it will happen. > > 2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a > gateway or integration with the translation system (i18n.redhat.com) for > docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community translators to > learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are already > giving so much of their time. Again, no word. > > 3. The Translation management (same team?) is not responding to our > repeated queries for help getting the release notes into i18n.redhat.com > for this test cycle from now (FC6t2) until FC6 gold, notwithstanding #2 > above. Karsten has posted these requests on f-trans-l and there's > nothing but silence from the other end. > > We're also not getting any response on status, and my understanding is > both Karsten and Rahul have pinged people about this stuff several times > without results. If I've misstated anything here, I hope either or both > of them will step in and correct me. I have asked again now for a status update on the docs relicensing which was supposed to be given a week or so before. I have no clue about the I18N relates issue and I havent tracked them. > > Otherwise, it's time to take this issue to the next level. Comments? > Max Spevack and Mathew Szulik are the only people at the higher level now. Not good. Rahul From notting at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 20:22:03 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:22:03 -0400 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060710202203.GA14664@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > 2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a > gateway or integration with the translation system (i18n.redhat.com) for > docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community translators to > learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are already > giving so much of their time. Again, no word. Meanwhile, in distro land, we've been trying to get i18n.redhat.com retired. Not good to be working at cross-purposes. Bill From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 20:27:20 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:57:20 +0530 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <20060710202203.GA14664@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060710202203.GA14664@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44B2B828.8080303@fedoraproject.org> Bill Nottingham wrote: > Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: >> 2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a >> gateway or integration with the translation system (i18n.redhat.com) for >> docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community translators to >> learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are already >> giving so much of their time. Again, no word. > > Meanwhile, in distro land, we've been trying to get i18n.redhat.com > retired. Not good to be working at cross-purposes. > > Bill > Whats the alternative here that replaces i18n.redhat.com? Rahul From blizzard at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 20:28:29 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:28:29 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Directory Server - Whats happening? In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090607101259u3ce73d5cu5a4ca09a25d0be54@mail.gmail.com> References: <44B2AF23.70600@fedoraproject.org> <44B2B05F.2040402@redhat.com> <80d7e4090607101259u3ce73d5cu5a4ca09a25d0be54@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44B2B86D.9000108@redhat.com> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 7/10/06, Christopher Blizzard wrote: >> Rahul wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > So its been a while (September 2004 since Red Hat spend around 25 >> > million dollars freeing Netscape directory server and releasing it >> under >> > the Fedora universe. >> > >> > Unfortunately the team build up their own wiki >> > (http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page) for no obvious >> > reason and despite havent been able to run it under GCJ for a while >> > havent submitted the package yet to review and include it in either >> > Fedora Core or Extras repository. >> > >> >> That was my fault since I jump started them. At the time, it was >> believed that we would have a bunch of little projects building up >> around the Fedora name. And each would have their own little site for >> hosting, etc. >> > > Bad Blizzard. Bad.. no cookie for you! > > What would be the best to help better integrate the two together again? > Honestly, I'm not sure we want to. What's the value in the integration, migrating users and content? That's not without cost. And you can't sell me on "integration for integration's sake." Also, talk to Bob Lord (cced) to find out what's going on in Directory-land. I've been out of the loop for a while. --Chris From mspevack at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 20:30:10 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <44B2B683.2010809@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44B2B683.2010809@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Rahul wrote: >> Otherwise, it's time to take this issue to the next level. Comments? > > Max Spevack and Mathew Szulik are the only people at the higher level > now. Not good. Heh, let me devote some time ASAP to sorting this out -- if translation folks within RH aren't meeting their commitments, then they need to be called on it. Karsten, I saw you pinged me on this last week, and I will work with you and Paul to get to some resolution. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From notting at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 20:30:50 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:30:50 -0400 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <44B2B828.8080303@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060710202203.GA14664@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <44B2B828.8080303@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20060710203050.GA14889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Rahul (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > >Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > >>2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a > >>gateway or integration with the translation system (i18n.redhat.com) for > >>docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community translators to > >>learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are already > >>giving so much of their time. Again, no word. > > > >Meanwhile, in distro land, we've been trying to get i18n.redhat.com > >retired. Not good to be working at cross-purposes. > > Whats the alternative here that replaces i18n.redhat.com? Moving it to be based on cvs.fedora and the Fedora accounts system rather than its own special account system. Bill From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 10 20:38:47 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:08:47 +0530 Subject: [fab] RPM 4.4.6 feature matix Message-ID: <44B2BAD7.1080708@fedoraproject.org> Hi Robert Scheck (CC'ed) has prepared this wiki page - http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/rpm-devel to help in the decision to upgrade or not the Fedora development version to the latest upstream RPM package. He removed the clearly editorial opinions after my IRC discussion which leaves us with the feature matrix and potential issues with each of them if any. Please feel free to update the wiki based on your evaluations. Thanks. Rahul From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 20:40:55 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:40:55 -0400 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <20060710203050.GA14889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060710202203.GA14664@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <44B2B828.8080303@fedoraproject.org> <20060710203050.GA14889@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152564055.1484.161.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 16:30 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Rahul (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said: > > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > >Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > > >>2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a > > >>gateway or integration with the translation system (i18n.redhat.com) for > > >>docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community translators to > > >>learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are already > > >>giving so much of their time. Again, no word. > > > > > >Meanwhile, in distro land, we've been trying to get i18n.redhat.com > > >retired. Not good to be working at cross-purposes. > > > > Whats the alternative here that replaces i18n.redhat.com? > > Moving it to be based on cvs.fedora and the Fedora accounts system rather > than its own special account system. The point is integration, not where the integration ends up. Or, to be more specific, communication about said integration. To clarify, no one is asking for i18n.r.c to stay. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From blizzard at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 20:47:05 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:47:05 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Directory Server - Whats happening? In-Reply-To: <44B2B86D.9000108@redhat.com> References: <44B2AF23.70600@fedoraproject.org> <44B2B05F.2040402@redhat.com> <80d7e4090607101259u3ce73d5cu5a4ca09a25d0be54@mail.gmail.com> <44B2B86D.9000108@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44B2BCC9.3010501@redhat.com> Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On 7/10/06, Christopher Blizzard wrote: >>> Rahul wrote: >>> > Hi >>> > >>> > So its been a while (September 2004 since Red Hat spend around 25 >>> > million dollars freeing Netscape directory server and releasing it >>> under >>> > the Fedora universe. >>> > >>> > Unfortunately the team build up their own wiki >>> > (http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page) for no obvious >>> > reason and despite havent been able to run it under GCJ for a while >>> > havent submitted the package yet to review and include it in either >>> > Fedora Core or Extras repository. >>> > >>> >>> That was my fault since I jump started them. At the time, it was >>> believed that we would have a bunch of little projects building up >>> around the Fedora name. And each would have their own little site for >>> hosting, etc. >>> >> >> Bad Blizzard. Bad.. no cookie for you! >> >> What would be the best to help better integrate the two together again? >> > > Honestly, I'm not sure we want to. What's the value in the integration, > migrating users and content? That's not without cost. And you can't > sell me on "integration for integration's sake." Also, talk to Bob Lord > (cced) to find out what's going on in Directory-land. I've been out of > the loop for a while. Oh, he's on vacation for a bit. --Chris From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 22:43:20 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:43:20 -0700 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <20060710202203.GA14664@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060710202203.GA14664@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152571400.29925.233.camel@erato.phig.org> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 16:22 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > > 2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a > > gateway or integration with the translation system (i18n.redhat.com) for > > docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community translators to > > learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are already > > giving so much of their time. Again, no word. > > Meanwhile, in distro land, we've been trying to get i18n.redhat.com > retired. Not good to be working at cross-purposes. This is all about retiring elvis/i18n, for certain. The code on i18n that allows for translators to lock and track the status of translations requires the CVS to be sitting on the same machine as the code. http://i18n.redhat.com/cgi-bin/i18n-status Until that lives on cvs.fedoraproject.org, we have been running a parallel translation effort in FDP. There are a handful of dedicated translators across a growing list of languages, but it does not benefit from the scalability and processes of the Fedora Translation Project. Regardless, it needs to be loved or rewritten as it is moved. So, this all goes hand-in-hand with moving trans CVS, their Web tools, and thousands of accounts to cvs.fedoraproject.org. Elliot picked this migration up again a few weeks ago for Fedora Infrastructure, and we've been knocking it around in private email with Paul Gampe and members of his group, who are supposed to have some internal ownership of the components. I'm still not sure why we are i) not doing anything in the open with this, ii) not doing anything with it except talking occasionally. Because the project has been batted back and forth for the last year and hasn't been brought out to be scheduled on the Wiki, discussed on list, etc., no one is really aware of the status. Since I can only peddle influence and good humor to get things like this done ;-D, I've been rather unsuccessful since ... last July, I'd reckon. In the meantime, we have two very vital pieces of documentation that should be translated into all the languages we translate the rest of the distro into: * Release notes * about-fedora.xml == System (menu) > About Fedora I _think_ "About GNOME"/"About KDE" are translated upstream, right? Since i18n is not going to be moved in time for test2 (or probably test3), we need to get those files loaded into CVS on i18n.r.c and made available through the translation interface. Then it needs WIDE publicity amongst translators that: 1. The files are here to be translated 2. The strings will change, maybe drastically, between test2 and FC 6 final 3. The existing upstream release notes translators (those working directly with us in FDP) are the language owners for those modules 4. This is documentation translation, versus software strings, so a specific set of skills may be needed. Since we have a working toolchain that produces and pulls back in well vetted PO/POT files, the effort involved for this work around is very minimal. 30 minutes on IRC with one or two of us from FDP? A pittance for such a huge benefit. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jul 10 22:49:42 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:49:42 -0700 Subject: [fab] Fedora Directory Server - Whats happening? In-Reply-To: <44B2B86D.9000108@redhat.com> References: <44B2AF23.70600@fedoraproject.org> <44B2B05F.2040402@redhat.com> <80d7e4090607101259u3ce73d5cu5a4ca09a25d0be54@mail.gmail.com> <44B2B86D.9000108@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152571782.29925.238.camel@erato.phig.org> On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 16:28 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Honestly, I'm not sure we want to. What's the value in the integration, > migrating users and content? That's not without cost. And you can't > sell me on "integration for integration's sake." Also, talk to Bob Lord > (cced) to find out what's going on in Directory-land. I've been out of > the loop for a while. I cannot speak for Bob, naturally, but my experiencing working with his group is that they are interested in being integrated in meaningful ways with the Fedora Project beyond name only. What that means exactly needs to be worked out. We have to consider this kind of situation overall, esp. with the light of existing efforts/communities at jboss.org. Just like it doesn't make sense to pull in every thousands of projects in the world to be hosted on the One True Open Source Infrastructure, it probably doesn't make sense to force every Fedora sub-project to toe the same line. - Karsten, metaphoric mixmaster -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nman64 at n-man.com Tue Jul 11 05:41:35 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:41:35 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fedora wallpapers and legal reuse of mark In-Reply-To: <44B268C9.8060802@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152542678.4244.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44B268C9.8060802@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200607110041.38111.nman64@n-man.com> I don't think that providing two logo options, one restricted and one free, is necessary or wise. I think we would be much better off carefully establishing rules and guidelines for the usage of one logo. It will take work and will probably require ongoing adjustments, but I believe we can create rules and guidelines for the official mark that will allow appropriate usage within the community without even having to ask for permission in most cases. If we provide two options, we'll likely end up in the same situation as Debian, where everyone recognizes only one of the marks. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sopwith at redhat.com Tue Jul 11 12:42:42 2006 From: sopwith at redhat.com (Elliot Lee) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 08:42:42 -0400 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <8F581B5F-E06C-4BA6-83F6-1228158E2BA5@redhat.com> On Jul 10, 2006, at 15:59, Paul W. Frields wrote: > 2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a > gateway or integration with the translation system > (i18n.redhat.com) for > docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community > translators to > learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are > already > giving so much of their time. Again, no word. So the hope as far as i18n.redhat.com goes (and I call it a hope because I dare not call it a plan) is to move those pieces of infrastructure over to the Fedora infrastructure. (There are also general CVS modules on the box that need to be moved over...) Unfortunately, it's just having a really hard time getting action from the right people internally. I can help with some of it, but I do not understand exactly how the site works and what pieces need to be moved over. Integrating those pieces with the account system is one big task remaining to be done. I suppose once it is moved over, this gatewaying/integration might be easier. If you were to create, say, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ Infrastructure/Translation, and put on it your precise definition of "gateway or integration", and an explanation of what apps are actually running on i18n.redhat.com at present, I think that'd go a long way to nudging things another step forward :) Best, -- Elliot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jul 11 18:30:14 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:00:14 +0530 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors Message-ID: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> Hi From a long ongoing discussion in https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00304.html, a few things came up that needs to be addressed better. I have already send in a mail about improving the integration of Fedora directory server. For legal issues, we have had Greg Dek acting as our counsel gateway for a while now. Considering the number of issues that popup (package license approvals, patent concerns, logo, trademark & brand guidelines etc etc), having a single person acting as a gateway might not be the best approach here and since the primary Red Hat counsel is already in this list, we might consider sending a mail to this list for addressing their legal concerns regarding Fedora for issues that can be address in a public list and let Greg Dek handle anything more sensitive off list. If we have consensus, lets make this our new policy. Another thing that came up is incentives for long term contributors. Thorsten has suggested a few items - A Pen, Sticker, T-Shirt, LWN subscription etc. I think all of our Fedora contributors or alteast our active ambassadors need to be send a bunch of free media kits for them to distribute whenever a new general release of Fedora is out. Rahul From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Tue Jul 11 18:33:12 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:33:12 -0400 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1152642792.17469.19.camel@cutter> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 00:00 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Hi > > > From a long ongoing discussion in > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00304.html, > a few things came up that needs to be addressed better. I have already > send in a mail about improving the integration of Fedora directory server. > > For legal issues, we have had Greg Dek acting as our counsel gateway for > a while now. Considering the number of issues that popup (package > license approvals, patent concerns, logo, trademark & brand guidelines > etc etc), having a single person acting as a gateway might not be the > best approach here and since the primary Red Hat counsel is already in > this list, we might consider sending a mail to this list for addressing > their legal concerns regarding Fedora for issues that can be address in > a public list and let Greg Dek handle anything more sensitive off list. > If we have consensus, lets make this our new policy. Umm - Is Greg on board with this? :) > Another thing that came up is incentives for long term contributors. > Thorsten has suggested a few items - A Pen, Sticker, T-Shirt, LWN > subscription etc. I think all of our Fedora contributors or alteast our > active ambassadors need to be send a bunch of free media kits for them > to distribute whenever a new general release of Fedora is out. ooo - lwn subscriptions. Oh - but I already have one, damn, so I guess I don't need another one. :) -sv From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Jul 11 18:48:46 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:48:46 -0500 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1152643726.18890.12.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 00:00 +0530, Rahul wrote: > > Another thing that came up is incentives for long term contributors. > Thorsten has suggested a few items - A Pen, Sticker, T-Shirt, LWN > subscription etc. I think all of our Fedora contributors or alteast our > active ambassadors need to be send a bunch of free media kits for them > to distribute whenever a new general release of Fedora is out. What's in the media kit? Just CDs? I'd gladly take those to give out. josh From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Jul 11 19:02:04 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:02:04 -0500 Subject: [fab] Packaging Committee/FESCo communication In-Reply-To: <1152353958.2728.368.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1152210773.22623.93.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <200607061551.21161.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152216832.22623.110.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44AD7191.3030902@math.unl.edu> <1152218806.22623.126.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1152219844.3597.48.camel@aglarond.local> <1152231613.10614.1.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1152353958.2728.368.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1152644524.18890.14.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 13:19 +0300, Ville Skytt? wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Does anyone have any problems with this? > > Not really here, OTOH it would be nice to document/enumerate the > constituents that can veto suggested changes alone or together with some > others enumerated in case of (hopefully very rare) disagreements as well > as document the process what happens if a change is vetoed. But there > are probably too many unknown case by case variables involved to be able > to do that, so "depends" (which roughly equals to leaving it out) is the > best I can come up with at the moment. > > The "a week" review period could maybe be clarified to "the week between > the FPC meeting that suggests these changes and the next FPC meeting, > but always >= 6 days". Good suggestions. Now, where do we officially document this at? josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jul 11 21:13:48 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:43:48 +0530 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <1152643726.18890.12.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <1152643726.18890.12.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <44B4148C.3010707@fedoraproject.org> Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 00:00 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> Another thing that came up is incentives for long term contributors. >> Thorsten has suggested a few items - A Pen, Sticker, T-Shirt, LWN >> subscription etc. I think all of our Fedora contributors or alteast our >> active ambassadors need to be send a bunch of free media kits for them >> to distribute whenever a new general release of Fedora is out. > > What's in the media kit? Just CDs? I'd gladly take those to give out. > > josh > CD/DVD, maybe a brochure which gives you a quick introduction and stuff and small goodies like stickers. Rahul From mspevack at redhat.com Wed Jul 12 14:30:04 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:30:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <1152642792.17469.19.camel@cutter> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <1152642792.17469.19.camel@cutter> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, seth vidal wrote: >> For legal issues, we have had Greg Dek acting as our counsel gateway >> for a while now. Considering the number of issues that popup (package >> license approvals, patent concerns, logo, trademark & brand guidelines >> etc etc), having a single person acting as a gateway might not be the >> best approach here and since the primary Red Hat counsel is already in >> this list, we might consider sending a mail to this list for addressing >> their legal concerns regarding Fedora for issues that can be address in >> a public list and let Greg Dek handle anything more sensitive off list. >> If we have consensus, lets make this our new policy. > > Umm - Is Greg on board with this? :) In reality, it should s/Greg/Max with regard to Fedora legal issues. And I'm on board with it. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Wed Jul 12 20:25:19 2006 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:25:19 -0700 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152735920.3061.40.camel@localhost> On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 12:46 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 17:48, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Summary: RPM 4.4.6 is available > > > Ugh. We really need to revoke his bugzilla rights and tell him that if he > wants a bug tracking system for his upstream rpm to get one on is own. Red > Hat's bugzilla should be for the rpm we include in our products, not > upstream. I'm tired of him messing with and closing Fedora / RHEL rpm > related bugs with snide upstream comments, that to the casual reader could be > considered coming from a Red Hat source. Enough is enough. > Has any thought been put into this? rpm is a critical piece of the distribution. As bad as it is when a bugzilla report against rpm appears to be ignored, these types of comments and bug closings by someone other than the Fedora/Red Hat maintainer are even worse. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Wed Jul 12 20:38:41 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:38:41 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fw: [Bug 174307] RPM 4.4.6 is available In-Reply-To: <1152735920.3061.40.camel@localhost> References: <20060707234814.66254e84.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <200607091246.57586.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152735920.3061.40.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1152736721.28994.42.camel@cutter> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 13:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-09 at 12:46 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Friday 07 July 2006 17:48, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Summary: RPM 4.4.6 is available > > > > > > Ugh. We really need to revoke his bugzilla rights and tell him that if he > > wants a bug tracking system for his upstream rpm to get one on is own. Red > > Hat's bugzilla should be for the rpm we include in our products, not > > upstream. I'm tired of him messing with and closing Fedora / RHEL rpm > > related bugs with snide upstream comments, that to the casual reader could be > > considered coming from a Red Hat source. Enough is enough. > > > Has any thought been put into this? rpm is a critical piece of the > distribution. As bad as it is when a bugzilla report against rpm > appears to be ignored, these types of comments and bug closings by > someone other than the Fedora/Red Hat maintainer are even worse. I agree. We don't give powers over bug reports to any other upstream maintainer (if in fact that's what he constitutes). If the upstream maintainer is also a fedora contributor that's something else, though. -sv From gdk at redhat.com Wed Jul 12 21:26:48 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:26:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing In-Reply-To: <1152220229.3597.56.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <44A5B1F5.9070200@fedoraproject.org> <1152134171.21676.19.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <1152143585.16657.257.camel@erato.phig.org> <1152220229.3597.56.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: Sorry guys, catching up on mail, but I did have one comment here: On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > 4. What does it mean to be a formal Fedora Project project, beyond the > > name? That is, is someone restricted from using the Wiki for the > > project until then? How about CVS? Plone? > > This is one of the recurring questions in my mind. And I don't have an > obvious answer to it. Yeah, I don't think the answer *is* obvious, but I think the answer is important. To me, the answer is *an identified leadership structure that makes things happen*. My take: any Fedora undertaking that is mature enough to (a) develop a critical mass of people who *do* something instead of talking about something, and (b) easily integrate other people who want to help by handing them useful actions to perform... is mature enough to be called a Fedora project. Really, it's a project when the *participants* decide it's a project... not when *we* decide it's a project. The board should be encouraging those "incubator projects" to *take action*, and should reward those that *do* take action by giving them "official project status". My $0.02. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From nman64 at n-man.com Thu Jul 13 05:58:12 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:58:12 -0500 Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing In-Reply-To: References: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <1152220229.3597.56.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <200607130058.14739.nman64@n-man.com> On Wednesday 12 July 2006 16:26, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Sorry guys, catching up on mail, but I did have one comment here: > > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > 4. What does it mean to be a formal Fedora Project project, beyond the > > > name? That is, is someone restricted from using the Wiki for the > > > project until then? How about CVS? Plone? > > > > This is one of the recurring questions in my mind. And I don't have an > > obvious answer to it. > > Yeah, I don't think the answer *is* obvious, but I think the answer is > important. > > To me, the answer is *an identified leadership structure that makes > things happen*. My take: any Fedora undertaking that is mature enough to > (a) develop a critical mass of people who *do* something instead of > talking about something, and (b) easily integrate other people who want to > help by handing them useful actions to perform... is mature enough to be > called a Fedora project. > > Really, it's a project when the *participants* decide it's a project... > not when *we* decide it's a project. The board should be encouraging > those "incubator projects" to *take action*, and should reward those that > *do* take action by giving them "official project status". > The draft page I put together the last time this topic came up is on the wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Jul 13 06:18:36 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:48:36 +0530 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <1152642792.17469.19.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <44B5E5BC.6040601@fedoraproject.org> Max Spevack wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, seth vidal wrote: > >>> For legal issues, we have had Greg Dek acting as our counsel gateway >>> for a while now. Considering the number of issues that popup (package >>> license approvals, patent concerns, logo, trademark & brand >>> guidelines etc etc), having a single person acting as a gateway might >>> not be the best approach here and since the primary Red Hat counsel >>> is already in this list, we might consider sending a mail to this >>> list for addressing their legal concerns regarding Fedora for issues >>> that can be address in a public list and let Greg Dek handle anything >>> more sensitive off list. If we have consensus, lets make this our new >>> policy. >> >> Umm - Is Greg on board with this? :) > > In reality, it should s/Greg/Max with regard to Fedora legal issues. > And I'm on board with it. > So would you prefer any legal issues including license approval for packages in Fedora Extras send to this list or to you directly. http://fedora.redhat.com/About/contact.html lists Greg Dek as the legal contact still. Patrick, can we copy all such pages (leaving out the formally published documentation under /docs for now) over to the wiki and setup up redirects? Shouldnt be more than a dozen pages now. Rahul From nman64 at n-man.com Thu Jul 13 06:33:58 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:33:58 -0500 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <44B5E5BC.6040601@fedoraproject.org> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <44B5E5BC.6040601@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200607130134.02386.nman64@n-man.com> On Thursday 13 July 2006 01:18, Rahul wrote: > > Patrick, can we copy all such pages (leaving out the formally published > documentation under /docs for now) over to the wiki and setup up > redirects? Shouldnt be more than a dozen pages now. > There are two reasons we haven't already done this: 1. We have to use manual redirects. Because of the way the site is currently set up, we can't use automatic redirects. This would be an ugly way to greet fedora.redhat.com visitors. 2. We want static content that is separate from the wiki. The Plone site is intended to provide this. Once the Plone site is up and running, we'll make fedora.redhat.com completely obsolete. At that point, we might even be able to move to a different system for fedora.redhat.com that would allow automatic redirects to the equivalent Plone pages. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Jul 13 06:41:36 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:11:36 +0530 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <200607130134.02386.nman64@n-man.com> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <44B5E5BC.6040601@fedoraproject.org> <200607130134.02386.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <44B5EB20.9020800@fedoraproject.org> Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > On Thursday 13 July 2006 01:18, Rahul wrote: >> Patrick, can we copy all such pages (leaving out the formally published >> documentation under /docs for now) over to the wiki and setup up >> redirects? Shouldnt be more than a dozen pages now. >> > > There are two reasons we haven't already done this: > > 1. We have to use manual redirects. Because of the way the site is currently > set up, we can't use automatic redirects. This would be an ugly way to greet > fedora.redhat.com visitors. I dont really consider the current spartan pages a much better user experience and we are doing redundant work. We already know that fedora.redhat.com is not easily changed either. > > 2. We want static content that is separate from the wiki. The Plone site is > intended to provide this. Once the Plone site is up and running, we'll make > fedora.redhat.com completely obsolete. At that point, we might even be able > to move to a different system for fedora.redhat.com that would allow > automatic redirects to the equivalent Plone pages. > I dont see how 1. is related to 2. What we need is a way to setup automatic redirects. If we dont have a way to do that, redirecting users to a wiki page manually is no different from redirecting users to a plone page. The usage of plone in fedoraproject.org doesnt provide us any benefits or change in setting redirects in fedora.redhat.com. Rahul From nman64 at n-man.com Thu Jul 13 07:30:46 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:30:46 -0500 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <44B5EB20.9020800@fedoraproject.org> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <200607130134.02386.nman64@n-man.com> <44B5EB20.9020800@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200607130230.50071.nman64@n-man.com> On Thursday 13 July 2006 01:41, Rahul wrote: > > There are two reasons we haven't already done this: > > > > 1. We have to use manual redirects. Because of the way the site is > > currently set up, we can't use automatic redirects. This would be an > > ugly way to greet fedora.redhat.com visitors. > > I dont really consider the current spartan pages a much better user > experience and we are doing redundant work. We already know that > fedora.redhat.com is not easily changed either. > The pages on fedora.redhat.com are current, and that's a better way to greet visitors than a "This page has moved..." page. fedora.redhat.com is also our current home for static content, and there's not much reason in trying to disable it when some pieces, like /docs, can't yet be moved. > > 2. We want static content that is separate from the wiki. The Plone > > site is intended to provide this. Once the Plone site is up and running, > > we'll make fedora.redhat.com completely obsolete. At that point, we > > might even be able to move to a different system for fedora.redhat.com > > that would allow automatic redirects to the equivalent Plone pages. > > I dont see how 1. is related to 2. What we need is a way to setup > automatic redirects. If we dont have a way to do that, redirecting users > to a wiki page manually is no different from redirecting users to a > plone page. The usage of plone in fedoraproject.org doesnt provide us > any benefits or change in setting redirects in fedora.redhat.com. > I never said the two points were related. ;-) Yes, we need a way to set up automatic redirects, but automatic redirects are not compatible with the current fedora.redhat.com infrastructure. Once fedora.redhat.com doesn't need to serve *any* of the current content, including /docs, we can break it in whatever ways are needed to move it to an alternative system and get automatic redirects in place for everything. Whether we have automatic redirects or not, we will not get rid of our static content, point users to a wiki location, recreate our static content, and create an additional redirect from the wiki to that new static content. The static content will be permanently housed on the Plone site, and we don't want to redirect users anywhere until we can redirect them there. I'll admit that the current state of fedora.redhat.com isn't ideal, but it already points to the wiki for most purposes, and keeping just like it is until we can move in our better technological solutions isn't going to hurt anything. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fedora at leemhuis.info Thu Jul 13 07:56:53 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:56:53 +0200 Subject: old pages on fedora.redhat.com (Was: Re: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors) In-Reply-To: <200607130230.50071.nman64@n-man.com> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <200607130134.02386.nman64@n-man.com> <44B5EB20.9020800@fedoraproject.org> <200607130230.50071.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <44B5FCC5.5060004@leemhuis.info> Patrick W. Barnes schrieb: > On Thursday 13 July 2006 01:41, Rahul wrote: >>> There are two reasons we haven't already done this: >>> 1. We have to use manual redirects. Because of the way the site is >>> currently set up, we can't use automatic redirects. This would be an >>> ugly way to greet fedora.redhat.com visitors. >> I dont really consider the current spartan pages a much better user >> experience and we are doing redundant work. We already know that >> fedora.redhat.com is not easily changed either. > The pages on fedora.redhat.com are current, [...] While on this topic -- old pages like http://fedora.redhat.com/about/ (new is http://fedora.redhat.com/About/ ) are still around on the server. I was told the old pages are not linked to on fedora.redhat.com (good idea ;-) ), but google an other search engines still find them. That confusing. And even worse: Google for example sometimes lists the old pages higher in the results than the new pages. That a PITA and should be fixed by deleting the old stuff. CU thl From nman64 at n-man.com Thu Jul 13 08:15:38 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:15:38 -0500 Subject: old pages on fedora.redhat.com (Was: Re: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors) In-Reply-To: <44B5FCC5.5060004@leemhuis.info> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <200607130230.50071.nman64@n-man.com> <44B5FCC5.5060004@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <200607130315.40960.nman64@n-man.com> On Thursday 13 July 2006 02:56, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Patrick W. Barnes schrieb: > > On Thursday 13 July 2006 01:41, Rahul wrote: > >>> There are two reasons we haven't already done this: > >>> 1. We have to use manual redirects. Because of the way the site is > >>> currently set up, we can't use automatic redirects. This would be an > >>> ugly way to greet fedora.redhat.com visitors. > >> > >> I dont really consider the current spartan pages a much better user > >> experience and we are doing redundant work. We already know that > >> fedora.redhat.com is not easily changed either. > > > > The pages on fedora.redhat.com are current, [...] > > While on this topic -- old pages like > http://fedora.redhat.com/about/ > (new is http://fedora.redhat.com/About/ ) > are still around on the server. I was told the old pages are not linked > to on fedora.redhat.com (good idea ;-) ), but google an other search > engines still find them. That confusing. And even worse: Google for > example sometimes lists the old pages higher in the results than the new > pages. That a PITA and should be fixed by deleting the old stuff. > Back when we did the fedora.redhat.com revamp, we tried to add manual redirects from older pages to current pages. If we've missed some (and I'm sure we have), they are worthy of bug reports. The change of locations during the revamp was a disaster all its own. There are links to bug templates on the Websites page of the wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Jul 13 08:32:15 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:02:15 +0530 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <200607130230.50071.nman64@n-man.com> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <200607130134.02386.nman64@n-man.com> <44B5EB20.9020800@fedoraproject.org> <200607130230.50071.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <44B6050F.1040109@fedoraproject.org> Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > > The pages on fedora.redhat.com are current, and that's a better way to greet > visitors than a "This page has moved..." page. fedora.redhat.com is also our > current home for static content, and there's not much reason in trying to > disable it when some pieces, like /docs, can't yet be moved. /docs is the only major holdout currently and we are already working on moving that over. > > Yes, we need a way to set up automatic redirects, but automatic redirects are > not compatible with the current fedora.redhat.com infrastructure. Once > fedora.redhat.com doesn't need to serve *any* of the current content, > including /docs, we can break it in whatever ways are needed to move it to an > alternative system and get automatic redirects in place for everything. I dont quite get this. How are we going to get automatic redirects in fedora.redhat.com at any point at all if the infrastructure is not compatible? Are we going to change the infrastructure? > > Whether we have automatic redirects or not, we will not get rid of our static > content, point users to a wiki location, recreate our static content, and > create an additional redirect from the wiki to that new static content. Its not as difficult as you make it sound. "static content" can just be wiki pages with ACL's. The number of static pages in fedora.redhat.com is probably just a dozen and some of which are already duplicated in the wiki. The > static content will be permanently housed on the Plone site, and we don't > want to redirect users anywhere until we can redirect them there. > > I'll admit that the current state of fedora.redhat.com isn't ideal, but it > already points to the wiki for most purposes, and keeping just like it is > until we can move in our better technological solutions isn't going to hurt > anything. > Actually it does. There a number of old pages that google finds confuses users like Thorsten pointed out and having the website so spartan is bad. It also splits traffic between fedora.redhat.com and fedoraproject.org. As long as we have two different websites for the same thing, we are bound to do redundant work. We keep talking about setting up the plone page but I dont see anyone working on it (other than a stock fpserver.fedoraproject.org) and I dont know enough about plone to do things myself. So how are we going to progress on this? We need a reasonable timeframe and being struck with no movement on plone is not a option. Rahul From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 12:19:34 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:19:34 -0400 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <8F581B5F-E06C-4BA6-83F6-1228158E2BA5@redhat.com> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8F581B5F-E06C-4BA6-83F6-1228158E2BA5@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152793174.1484.276.camel@localhost.localdomain> dOn Tue, 2006-07-11 at 08:42 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote: > On Jul 10, 2006, at 15:59, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > 2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a > > gateway or integration with the translation system > > (i18n.redhat.com) for > > docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community > > translators to > > learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are > > already > > giving so much of their time. Again, no word. > > So the hope as far as i18n.redhat.com goes (and I call it a hope > because I dare not call it a plan) is to move those pieces of > infrastructure over to the Fedora infrastructure. (There are also > general CVS modules on the box that need to be moved over...) > > Unfortunately, it's just having a really hard time getting action > from the right people internally. I can help with some of it, but I > do not understand exactly how the site works and what pieces need to > be moved over. Integrating those pieces with the account system is > one big task remaining to be done. And I do not understand it *at all*, since I've only seen it from the outside. And yes, I understand it's a big task. Just for clarity's sake, our communication breakdown starts inside the Red Hat wall somewhere, but you and some other Fedora Infrastructure people are not part of that problem AFAICT. As I mentioned elsewhere, the smaller part of the problem is progress; the larger problems is communication. See below... > I suppose once it is moved over, this gatewaying/integration might be > easier. If you were to create, say, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ > Infrastructure/Translation, and put on it your precise definition of > "gateway or integration", and an explanation of what apps are > actually running on i18n.redhat.com at present, I think that'd go a > long way to nudging things another step forward :) Karsten Wade has been bugging the exact same internal people, and telling them exactly what we need. I don't think a wiki page is going to solve that particular problem, but I started one anyway. He knows better than I what the changeover entails, FWIW, so if he's moved to put that out on the wiki, Godspeed. Our vision is simply to have documentation available through this system using the same checkout/in method, without having to dole out CVS access to every single translator who wants to do work. That's a barrier to entry since it depends on the availability of those of us who can give such access. We don't have any grand plan, other than that we make it easier for translators to grab PO for our documentation. I put the meager requirements I could come up with on that wiki page for reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Translation Thanks for your time and thoughts, Elliot; you've always been a great help to us on the Docs team despite your myriad other responsibilities. Hopefully soon we will start to hear something further on how this migration is going from the folks we're all bugging. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nman64 at n-man.com Thu Jul 13 12:59:21 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:59:21 -0500 Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <44B6050F.1040109@fedoraproject.org> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <200607130230.50071.nman64@n-man.com> <44B6050F.1040109@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200607130759.25239.nman64@n-man.com> On Thursday 13 July 2006 03:32, Rahul wrote: > Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > > The pages on fedora.redhat.com are current, and that's a better way to > > greet visitors than a "This page has moved..." page. fedora.redhat.com > > is also our current home for static content, and there's not much reason > > in trying to disable it when some pieces, like /docs, can't yet be moved. > > /docs is the only major holdout currently and we are already working on > moving that over. It's not the only holdout, but it is the largest one. > > > Yes, we need a way to set up automatic redirects, but automatic redirects > > are not compatible with the current fedora.redhat.com infrastructure. > > Once fedora.redhat.com doesn't need to serve *any* of the current > > content, including /docs, we can break it in whatever ways are needed to > > move it to an alternative system and get automatic redirects in place for > > everything. > > I dont quite get this. How are we going to get automatic redirects in > fedora.redhat.com at any point at all if the infrastructure is not > compatible? Are we going to change the infrastructure? It's an option, but only once the current infrastructure is useless. > > > Whether we have automatic redirects or not, we will not get rid of our > > static content, point users to a wiki location, recreate our static > > content, and create an additional redirect from the wiki to that new > > static content. > > Its not as difficult as you make it sound. "static content" can just be > wiki pages with ACL's. The number of static pages in fedora.redhat.com > is probably just a dozen and some of which are already duplicated in the > wiki. I'm not saying it's extremely difficult, I'm saying we don't want to treat our users like ping-pong balls when we'll be able to achieve a near-perfect solution if we're just patient a little longer. > > The > > > static content will be permanently housed on the Plone site, and we don't > > want to redirect users anywhere until we can redirect them there. > > > > I'll admit that the current state of fedora.redhat.com isn't ideal, but > > it already points to the wiki for most purposes, and keeping just like it > > is until we can move in our better technological solutions isn't going to > > hurt anything. > > Actually it does. There a number of old pages that google finds confuses > users like Thorsten pointed out and having the website so spartan is > bad. It also splits traffic between fedora.redhat.com and > fedoraproject.org. As long as we have two different websites for the > same thing, we are bound to do redundant work. We keep talking about > setting up the plone page but I dont see anyone working on it (other > than a stock fpserver.fedoraproject.org) and I dont know enough about > plone to do things myself. So how are we going to progress on this? We > need a reasonable timeframe and being struck with no movement on plone > is not a option. > The old stragglers from before the fedora.redhat.com revamp can (and must) be replaced with manual redirects, but that's a separate issue entirely. I still feel that the change of locations during the revamp was a folly. Of course, if we completely knock out that infrastructure and get something in place that enables automatic redirects, we can redirect all pages, old and new, to appropriate Plone locations. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/PloneToDo http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/PloneIssues I don't think content for the Plone site is going to be a real problem anymore. Once the other issues are resolved, I think we'll be able to move Plone into place quickly. We can take care of further enhancement as we go. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From katzj at redhat.com Thu Jul 13 13:25:37 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:25:37 -0400 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <1152793174.1484.276.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8F581B5F-E06C-4BA6-83F6-1228158E2BA5@redhat.com> <1152793174.1484.276.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1152797137.2847.8.camel@aglarond.local> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 08:19 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 08:42 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote: > > On Jul 10, 2006, at 15:59, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > 2. Translation/Infrastructure in Red Hat was supposed to provide a > > > gateway or integration with the translation system > > > (i18n.redhat.com) for > > > docs stuff. This would ease the burden on our community > > > translators to > > > learn different systems, which is a real PITA for those who are > > > already > > > giving so much of their time. Again, no word. > > > > So the hope as far as i18n.redhat.com goes (and I call it a hope > > because I dare not call it a plan) is to move those pieces of > > infrastructure over to the Fedora infrastructure. (There are also > > general CVS modules on the box that need to be moved over...) > > > > Unfortunately, it's just having a really hard time getting action > > from the right people internally. I can help with some of it, but I > > do not understand exactly how the site works and what pieces need to > > be moved over. Integrating those pieces with the account system is > > one big task remaining to be done. > > And I do not understand it *at all*, since I've only seen it from the > outside. And yes, I understand it's a big task. Just for clarity's > sake, our communication breakdown starts inside the Red Hat wall > somewhere, but you and some other Fedora Infrastructure people are not > part of that problem AFAICT. As I mentioned elsewhere, the smaller part > of the problem is progress; the larger problems is communication. See > below... Let me try to stir up the hornet's nest about this some when I get into the office... Jeremy From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jul 13 13:55:23 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:55:23 -0700 Subject: [fab] A real communication problem In-Reply-To: <1152797137.2847.8.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1152561597.1484.145.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8F581B5F-E06C-4BA6-83F6-1228158E2BA5@redhat.com> <1152793174.1484.276.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1152797137.2847.8.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <1152798923.7064.279.camel@erato.phig.org> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 09:25 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > Let me try to stir up the hornet's nest about this some when I get into > the office... Tip: the group providing services to engineering (QA, trans, content, etc.) is the group that has self-identified, from it's leadership, as being accountable for Fedora infrastructure like this. Red Hat has to put some resources onto this project who are not easily distracted by pressing business needs, as if a successful Fedora was not a business need of Red Hat's. :) If that is the above mentioned group, great! But the 'saying' must be followed by the 'doing', and that is where we are today. All say, no do. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mspevack at redhat.com Thu Jul 13 15:38:20 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors In-Reply-To: <44B5E5BC.6040601@fedoraproject.org> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <1152642792.17469.19.camel@cutter> <44B5E5BC.6040601@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Rahul wrote: > So would you prefer any legal issues including license approval for > packages in Fedora Extras send to this list or to you directly. I would like to see the individual legal issues handled on this list as much as possible -- Mark Webbink is on the list, and unless there's specific legal reasons why the issues need to be discussed off-list and reported back, I'd prefer to have those questions answered here, if Mark is ok with that. It doesn't mean we won't take things off email when necessary (and I'll be the point man for that), but I don't think we need to have a legal "gateway" when one isn't always necessary. Push the ability to get things done to the edges, meaning the people on this list. Mark, what do you think? How about if we started threads that had legal issues in them with "LEGAL: " in the subject line, and you could either comment on the list, or indicate that it's a sensitive enough topic that we should talk about it off of email. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From gdk at redhat.com Thu Jul 13 18:24:32 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:24:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <1152432633.8685.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <44B0E76D.1090405@glezos.com> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> Message-ID: To circle back on this: The fundamental problem with any artwork that contains the Fedora logo is this: THE FEDORA LOGO IS NOT PART OF ANY COMMONS. IT IS A TRADEMARK THAT RED HAT INTENDS TO PROTECT. Legally, I just don't see any middle ground *at all* here. There is no current OSS/CC license we could grant that would allow us editorial control over the *use* of the mark -- which is the key demand of our legal department. The Fedora Logo is not redistributable without permission, period. Which means that the CC NoDerivs license would be unacceptable, and the OPL would be unacceptable. If we can't even allow *free redistribution* of the logo, then how can we allow *free modification and redistribution*? The answer is, WE CAN'T. To repeat: NONE OF THE CURRENT OSS/CC LICENSES APPLY. PERIOD. Am I wrong here? Mark? Anyone? === If I'm right, it means that we must come up with an approval process for both redistribution and modification of *any* artwork that contains the Fedora logo -- a process that has the lowest possible overhead, and which makes it *crystal clear* that the logo is NOT OPEN. (This, by the way, is precisely why I've been advocating so strongly for two logos. Re: the "official Debian logo," maybe the reason no one ever sees it is that Debian has a very difficult time doing anything in an "official" capacity.) --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, [UTF-8] M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Warning - IANAL, and can't offer legal advice, etc. etc., these are just > my thoughts: > > > On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > >> I believe that the CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License of > >> Diana's work is not compatible because of the Non commercial and No > >> derivatives clauses. > > Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Heh. Licensing, content, and RPMs. A fascinating topic. :) > > > > We don't yet have a clear policy for licensing of artwork. The Fedora > > logo, for instance, *cannot* itself be licensed because it's a trademark > > that we want to protect. > > > > But what does that mean for projects that seek to reuse that artwork? > > Makes it very difficult. > > FWIW I really think Creative Commons' Attribution ShareAlike license [1] > is the most compatible artwork license for the ideals of Fedora. > > I really don't like the idea of having NoDerivs applied to Fedora > artwork as that seems to render it 'closed source' in a way. If other > artists would like to take NoDeriv-licensed wallpapers, 'remix' them, > and make them available, they cannot under the provisions of that > license. The rationale for the NoDerivs clause on any artwork that uses > the Fedora logo makes no sense to me. We're not licensing our code > 'NoDerivs,' why would we want to license our artwork NoDerivs? It > doesn't protect the logo - it protects everything in the image but the > Fedora logo, case in point: > > (1) If I wanted to take a nice wallpaper but modify it so it was say a > Debian wallpaper rather than a Fedora one, it seems I could not because > of the NoDerivs clause. If I took the wallpaper with the Fedora logo on > a golf ball, for example, gimped out the Fedora logo and put in a Debian > logo, that would be creating a derivative of that wallpaper thus > violating the license. > > (2) If I wanted to make a new wallpaper with the Fedora logo, I most > certainly could and people have - Diana has a whole website full of > them. So the NoDerivs clause does not seem to protect the logo at least > in practice. > > AFAIK, we are also looking to use Attribution ShareAlike for the new > icons the Fedora Art team is working on [2] (please correct me if I'm > wrong, Diana) The advantage of the CC licenses over the GPL (the GPL was > used for the Bluecurve icon artwork) is that the CC licenses are written > specifically to address media content, and the Attribution ShareAlike > license is really the closest of the CC licenses in spirit to the GPL. > > I understand that the logo licensing issue is complicated and hairy, but > I think having artwork with a NoDerivs license just makes the situation > worse. It seems to me that the presence of the logo in a piece of > artwork suggests a more open license; otherwise the artist in question > is taking the logo as it was their own IP and their right to license its > usage which it is not. Wouldn't allowing people to do such jeopardize > the trademark? > > This all seems to be a sore topic though. How do we discuss this and > move forward with a solid policy? I think this is a very important step > for the Fedora Art team to grow. > > ~m From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Thu Jul 13 18:31:44 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:31:44 -0400 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <1152432633.8685.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <44B0E76D.1090405@glezos.com> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152815504.789.22.camel@cutter> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 14:24 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > To circle back on this: > > The fundamental problem with any artwork that contains the Fedora logo is > this: > > THE FEDORA LOGO IS NOT PART OF ANY COMMONS. IT IS A TRADEMARK THAT RED > HAT INTENDS TO PROTECT. > > Legally, I just don't see any middle ground *at all* here. There is no > current OSS/CC license we could grant that would allow us editorial > control over the *use* of the mark -- which is the key demand of our legal > department. > > The Fedora Logo is not redistributable without permission, period. Which > means that the CC NoDerivs license would be unacceptable, and the OPL > would be unacceptable. > > If we can't even allow *free redistribution* of the logo, then how can we > allow *free modification and redistribution*? The answer is, WE CAN'T. > To repeat: NONE OF THE CURRENT OSS/CC LICENSES APPLY. PERIOD. > > Am I wrong here? Mark? Anyone? > > === > > If I'm right, it means that we must come up with an approval process for > both redistribution and modification of *any* artwork that contains the > Fedora logo -- a process that has the lowest possible overhead, and which > makes it *crystal clear* that the logo is NOT OPEN. > > (This, by the way, is precisely why I've been advocating so strongly for > two logos. Re: the "official Debian logo," maybe the reason no one ever > sees it is that Debian has a very difficult time doing anything in an > "official" capacity.) > > --g > Can we take the current 'official' logo and make it the shareable one and have an official logo that is something else? I mean if the public logo is an infinity sign maybe we can make the protected logo a nullset? -sv From notting at redhat.com Thu Jul 13 18:36:23 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:36:23 -0400 Subject: [fab] [LEGAL] licenses - lists and definitions? Message-ID: <20060713183623.GA10842@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> We were discussing code based on mDNSResponder today, which is licensed under the Apple Public Source License (APSL). I brought up that that license was considered generally bad, and we'd prefer not to ship it, even if it is a OSI-approved license. Do we have a list of OSI-approved licenses we *avoid*? This would make discussions like this easier. Bill From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jul 13 19:05:28 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:05:28 -0400 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:24, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > If we can't even allow *free redistribution* of the logo, then how can we > allow *free modification and redistribution*? ?The answer is, WE CAN'T. ? > To repeat: NONE OF THE CURRENT OSS/CC LICENSES APPLY. ?PERIOD. Does this mean that Fedora is not redistributable? Wasn't that one of the major goals of Fedora? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From notting at redhat.com Thu Jul 13 19:06:22 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:06:22 -0400 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060713190622.GA11230@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: > > If we can't even allow *free redistribution* of the logo, then how can we > > allow *free modification and redistribution*? ?The answer is, WE CAN'T. ? > > To repeat: NONE OF THE CURRENT OSS/CC LICENSES APPLY. ?PERIOD. > > Does this mean that Fedora is not redistributable? Wasn't that one of the > major goals of Fedora? The license on Fedora Core itself stipulates the conditions under which you can redistribute it, which includes the logo... Bill From gdk at redhat.com Thu Jul 13 19:32:31 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:32:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:24, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > If we can't even allow *free redistribution* of the logo, then how can we > > allow *free modification and redistribution*? ??The answer is, WE CAN'T. ?? > > To repeat: NONE OF THE CURRENT OSS/CC LICENSES APPLY. ??PERIOD. > > Does this mean that Fedora is not redistributable? Wasn't that one of the > major goals of Fedora? A fair question. We do essentially grant a "license" of sorts for redistribution of the logo, and they can be found in our trademark guidelines, here: http://fedora.redhat.com/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page4.html This license means that Fedora, *as we ship it*, is fully redistributable. But if you change the content, you must lose the logo, because shipping altered content violates the terms of usage of the logo. This is a reasonable compromise, IMHO, but this *particular* flavor of compromise leaves no room to play with the logo. At all. There is another reasonable compromise: 1. Come up with a "protected" logo that ships with FCn, and really anywhere we need to emphasize the strong relationship between RH and Fedora. 2. Apply the aforementioned guidelines to the "protected" logo. 3. "Free" the current logo. 4. Grant broader rights to the "free" logo via a CC license. Apparently, not everyone thinks that this compromise is as reasonable as I do. So it goes. But without such a compromise, we have to play serious hardball in all matters logo-related, and it adds a lot of overhead to our community building efforts. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Jul 13 19:40:03 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:40:03 -0500 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 15:32 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:24, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > If we can't even allow *free redistribution* of the logo, then how can we > > > allow *free modification and redistribution*? The answer is, WE CAN'T. > > > To repeat: NONE OF THE CURRENT OSS/CC LICENSES APPLY. PERIOD. > > > > Does this mean that Fedora is not redistributable? Wasn't that one of the > > major goals of Fedora? > > A fair question. > > We do essentially grant a "license" of sorts for redistribution of the > logo, and they can be found in our trademark guidelines, here: > > http://fedora.redhat.com/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page4.html > > This license means that Fedora, *as we ship it*, is fully redistributable. > But if you change the content, you must lose the logo, because shipping > altered content violates the terms of usage of the logo. > > This is a reasonable compromise, IMHO, but this *particular* flavor of > compromise leaves no room to play with the logo. At all. > > There is another reasonable compromise: > > 1. Come up with a "protected" logo that ships with FCn, and really > anywhere we need to emphasize the strong relationship between RH and > Fedora. Aka, the RH logo, but with a blue hat instead (as an example). > 2. Apply the aforementioned guidelines to the "protected" logo. > 3. "Free" the current logo. > 4. Grant broader rights to the "free" logo via a CC license. I like this. How does it get pushed to the appropriate people? josh From gdk at redhat.com Thu Jul 13 19:42:21 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Josh Boyer wrote: > > There is another reasonable compromise: > > > > 1. Come up with a "protected" logo that ships with FCn, and really > > anywhere we need to emphasize the strong relationship between RH and > > Fedora. > > Aka, the RH logo, but with a blue hat instead (as an example). > > > 2. Apply the aforementioned guidelines to the "protected" logo. > > 3. "Free" the current logo. > > 4. Grant broader rights to the "free" logo via a CC license. > > I like this. How does it get pushed to the appropriate people? Oh, it has been. Unfortunately, it's been rejected. Which means that my current efforts are actually a bit like bear-baiting. :) --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Jul 14 01:34:33 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:34:33 -0400 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200607132134.33394.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 13 July 2006 15:32, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > We do essentially grant a "license" of sorts for redistribution of the > logo, and they can be found in our trademark guidelines, here: > > http://fedora.redhat.com/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page4.html > > This license means that Fedora, *as we ship it*, is fully redistributable. > ? But if you change the content, you must lose the logo, because shipping > altered content violates the terms of usage of the logo. Ok, right. I remember this now. Forgive me, I'm a bit braindead from fixing crapages (crappy packages) all day. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 02:35:52 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:35:52 -0400 Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing In-Reply-To: <200607130058.14739.nman64@n-man.com> References: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> <1152220229.3597.56.camel@aglarond.local> <200607130058.14739.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <1152844552.12193.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 00:58 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > On Wednesday 12 July 2006 16:26, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Sorry guys, catching up on mail, but I did have one comment here: > > > > On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > > > 4. What does it mean to be a formal Fedora Project project, beyond the > > > > name? That is, is someone restricted from using the Wiki for the > > > > project until then? How about CVS? Plone? > > > > > > This is one of the recurring questions in my mind. And I don't have an > > > obvious answer to it. > > > > Yeah, I don't think the answer *is* obvious, but I think the answer is > > important. > > > > To me, the answer is *an identified leadership structure that makes > > things happen*. My take: any Fedora undertaking that is mature enough to > > (a) develop a critical mass of people who *do* something instead of > > talking about something, and (b) easily integrate other people who want to > > help by handing them useful actions to perform... is mature enough to be > > called a Fedora project. > > > > Really, it's a project when the *participants* decide it's a project... > > not when *we* decide it's a project. The board should be encouraging > > those "incubator projects" to *take action*, and should reward those that > > *do* take action by giving them "official project status". > > > > The draft page I put together the last time this topic came up is on the wiki: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects I've been looking at this page to try and winnow it down to make it seem a little less daunting, per Max's request. It's written very well, but there seems to be a tidal surge toward a kinder, gentler way in to the greater Fedora Project. We have some conflicting needs: 1. Lower barriers to entry vs. protection of Fedora name and trademarks 2. Support for initiative vs. discouragement of community over-fragmentation I'm monitoring any comments to see how I can fit them into this page. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nman64 at n-man.com Fri Jul 14 03:06:17 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:06:17 -0500 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <200607132206.20633.nman64@n-man.com> On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:42, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > There is another reasonable compromise: > > > > > > 1. Come up with a "protected" logo that ships with FCn, and really > > > anywhere we need to emphasize the strong relationship between RH and > > > Fedora. > > > > Aka, the RH logo, but with a blue hat instead (as an example). > > > > > 2. Apply the aforementioned guidelines to the "protected" logo. > > > 3. "Free" the current logo. > > > 4. Grant broader rights to the "free" logo via a CC license. > > > > I like this. How does it get pushed to the appropriate people? > > Oh, it has been. Unfortunately, it's been rejected. > > Which means that my current efforts are actually a bit like bear-baiting. > > :) > D'oh! Just when you had me convinced... So... where do we stand? Are our hands tied completely? -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Fri Jul 14 03:25:28 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:25:28 -0500 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <44B70EA8.6050208@math.unl.edu> Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>> There is another reasonable compromise: >>> >>> 1. Come up with a "protected" logo that ships with FCn, and really >>> anywhere we need to emphasize the strong relationship between RH and >>> Fedora. >> Aka, the RH logo, but with a blue hat instead (as an example). >> >>> 2. Apply the aforementioned guidelines to the "protected" logo. >>> 3. "Free" the current logo. >>> 4. Grant broader rights to the "free" logo via a CC license. >> I like this. How does it get pushed to the appropriate people? > > Oh, it has been. Unfortunately, it's been rejected. > Which means that my current efforts are actually a bit like bear-baiting. Or go the other route of keeping the existing logo as-is, and making a new "free" one? -- Rex From chitlesh at fedoraproject.org Fri Jul 14 08:50:37 2006 From: chitlesh at fedoraproject.org (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:50:37 +0200 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <44B70EA8.6050208@math.unl.edu> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44B70EA8.6050208@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <13dbfe4f0607140150v71e1f4dcj25fd8f5a096323f4@mail.gmail.com> On 7/14/06, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Or go the other route of keeping the existing logo as-is, and making a > new "free" one? I am FOR! Kadischi enables one to create his own personalized livecd and hence one is influenced to unknowingly commit THE crime of misusing the Fedora logo. If there is a "free" logo, we could replace somehow the "protected" logo when building livecds. Chitlesh -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Jul 14 09:02:58 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:32:58 +0530 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <13dbfe4f0607140150v71e1f4dcj25fd8f5a096323f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44B70EA8.6050208@math.unl.edu> <13dbfe4f0607140150v71e1f4dcj25fd8f5a096323f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44B75DC2.6040905@fedoraproject.org> Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: > On 7/14/06, Rex Dieter wrote: >> >> Or go the other route of keeping the existing logo as-is, and making a >> new "free" one? > > I am FOR! > Kadischi enables one to create his own personalized livecd and hence > one is influenced to unknowingly commit THE crime of misusing the > Fedora logo. > > If there is a "free" logo, we could replace somehow the "protected" > logo when building livecds. What difference does it make is we "free" the current logo for use in Kadischi and have a new restricted official logo ? Rahul From chitlesh at fedoraproject.org Fri Jul 14 09:09:50 2006 From: chitlesh at fedoraproject.org (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:09:50 +0200 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <44B75DC2.6040905@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44B70EA8.6050208@math.unl.edu> <13dbfe4f0607140150v71e1f4dcj25fd8f5a096323f4@mail.gmail.com> <44B75DC2.6040905@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <13dbfe4f0607140209l2fb83b8bxb96e9ec227ff4eae@mail.gmail.com> On 7/14/06, Rahul wrote: > What difference does it make is we "free" the current logo for use in > Kadischi and have a new restricted official logo ? It all depends, on Fedora Core, since kadischi builds a livecd from minimum a Fedora Core repository. If the new restricted official logo is in Fedora Core, then I have to replace it when building livecds by kadischi. -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Jul 14 09:15:33 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:45:33 +0530 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <13dbfe4f0607140209l2fb83b8bxb96e9ec227ff4eae@mail.gmail.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44B70EA8.6050208@math.unl.edu> <13dbfe4f0607140150v71e1f4dcj25fd8f5a096323f4@mail.gmail.com> <44B75DC2.6040905@fedoraproject.org> <13dbfe4f0607140209l2fb83b8bxb96e9ec227ff4eae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44B760B5.8020708@fedoraproject.org> Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: > On 7/14/06, Rahul wrote: >> What difference does it make is we "free" the current logo for use in >> Kadischi and have a new restricted official logo ? > > It all depends, on Fedora Core, since kadischi builds a livecd from > minimum a Fedora Core repository. If the new restricted official logo > is in Fedora Core, then I have to replace it when building livecds by > kadischi. > That can be easily done. Ship both the logos. Kadischi should have the capability to pick the unrestricted logo for derivatives and rebrand the distribution easily. Having the rebranding code as a separate utility would be useful for other efforts too. Here is a list of stuff that it can handle. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/Branding Rahul Rahul From chitlesh at fedoraproject.org Fri Jul 14 09:27:06 2006 From: chitlesh at fedoraproject.org (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:27:06 +0200 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <44B760B5.8020708@fedoraproject.org> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <44B70EA8.6050208@math.unl.edu> <13dbfe4f0607140150v71e1f4dcj25fd8f5a096323f4@mail.gmail.com> <44B75DC2.6040905@fedoraproject.org> <13dbfe4f0607140209l2fb83b8bxb96e9ec227ff4eae@mail.gmail.com> <44B760B5.8020708@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <13dbfe4f0607140227m634a14c1qac6ff3c5217232e9@mail.gmail.com> On 7/14/06, Rahul wrote: > That can be easily done. Ship both the logos. Kadischi should have the > capability to pick the unrestricted logo for derivatives and rebrand the > distribution easily. Having the rebranding code as a separate utility > would be useful for other efforts too. > > Here is a list of stuff that it can handle. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/Branding On the Livecd ML, we have already talked about it before. After my vacation, ill code it. Ill consider it a must to code something, since we are looking forward to have Kadischi in Fedora-extras-development only in order to have more testers on different arch. -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com From smooge at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 14:04:15 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:04:15 -0600 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090607140704u382ce320j6dd34c9dd1fa34a@mail.gmail.com> On 7/13/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 15:32 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > 1. Come up with a "protected" logo that ships with FCn, and really > > anywhere we need to emphasize the strong relationship between RH and > > Fedora. > > Aka, the RH logo, but with a blue hat instead (as an example). > We had a 'Blue-Shoes' logo in technical support for a cd-set we were going to put together someday. We figured it was the opposite end of the Red Hat spectrum (well Purple Socks were also looked at...) -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From matt at domsch.com Fri Jul 14 16:48:06 2006 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090607140704u382ce320j6dd34c9dd1fa34a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <80d7e4090607140704u382ce320j6dd34c9dd1fa34a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060714164806.GA6887@domsch.com> On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:04:15AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 7/13/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > >On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 15:32 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > >> 1. Come up with a "protected" logo that ships with FCn, and really > >> anywhere we need to emphasize the strong relationship between RH and > >> Fedora. > > > >Aka, the RH logo, but with a blue hat instead (as an example). > > > > We had a 'Blue-Shoes' logo in technical support for a cd-set we were > going to put together someday. We figured it was the opposite end of > the Red Hat spectrum (well Purple Socks were also looked at...) You can always tell the engineers with kids and Sandra Boyington books. :-) From smooge at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 17:01:03 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:01:03 -0600 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <20060714164806.GA6887@domsch.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <80d7e4090607140704u382ce320j6dd34c9dd1fa34a@mail.gmail.com> <20060714164806.GA6887@domsch.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090607141001v4e4a4214q35e7358653cc0031@mail.gmail.com> On 7/14/06, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 08:04:15AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On 7/13/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > > >On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 15:32 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > >> 1. Come up with a "protected" logo that ships with FCn, and really > > >> anywhere we need to emphasize the strong relationship between RH and > > >> Fedora. > > > > > >Aka, the RH logo, but with a blue hat instead (as an example). > > > > > > > We had a 'Blue-Shoes' logo in technical support for a cd-set we were > > going to put together someday. We figured it was the opposite end of > > the Red Hat spectrum (well Purple Socks were also looked at...) > > You can always tell the engineers with kids and Sandra Boyington > books. :-) > Ooops! :) -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 17:47:19 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:47:19 -0400 Subject: [fab] Licensing the Fedora logo In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090607140704u382ce320j6dd34c9dd1fa34a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <44B3C19F.2060306@redhat.com> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <1152819603.31703.17.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <80d7e4090607140704u382ce320j6dd34c9dd1fa34a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1152899239.12193.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 08:04 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 7/13/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 15:32 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > 1. Come up with a "protected" logo that ships with FCn, and really > > > anywhere we need to emphasize the strong relationship between RH and > > > Fedora. > > > > Aka, the RH logo, but with a blue hat instead (as an example). > > > > We had a 'Blue-Shoes' logo in technical support for a cd-set we were > going to put together someday. We figured it was the opposite end of > the Red Hat spectrum (well Purple Socks were also looked at...) :-) One of my favorite books to read to my kids... my son is still young enough to enjoy it. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From fedora at leemhuis.info Sun Jul 16 16:35:51 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:35:51 +0200 Subject: old pages on fedora.redhat.com (Was: Re: [fab] Legal contact policy and incentives for contributors) In-Reply-To: <200607130315.40960.nman64@n-man.com> References: <44B3EE36.5030009@fedoraproject.org> <200607130230.50071.nman64@n-man.com> <44B5FCC5.5060004@leemhuis.info> <200607130315.40960.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <44BA6AE7.4050100@leemhuis.info> Patrick W. Barnes schrieb: > On Thursday 13 July 2006 02:56, Thorsten Leemhuis > wrote: >> Patrick W. Barnes schrieb: >>> On Thursday 13 July 2006 01:41, Rahul wrote: >>>>> There are two reasons we haven't already done this: >>>>> 1. We have to use manual redirects. Because of the way the site is >>>>> currently set up, we can't use automatic redirects. This would be an >>>>> ugly way to greet fedora.redhat.com visitors. >>>> I dont really consider the current spartan pages a much better user >>>> experience and we are doing redundant work. We already know that >>>> fedora.redhat.com is not easily changed either. >>> The pages on fedora.redhat.com are current, [...] >> While on this topic -- old pages like >> http://fedora.redhat.com/about/ >> (new is http://fedora.redhat.com/About/ ) >> are still around on the server. I was told the old pages are not linked >> to on fedora.redhat.com (good idea ;-) ), but google an other search >> engines still find them. That confusing. And even worse: Google for >> example sometimes lists the old pages higher in the results than the new >> pages. That a PITA and should be fixed by deleting the old stuff. > Back when we did the fedora.redhat.com revamp, we tried to add manual > redirects from older pages to current pages. If we've missed some (and I'm > sure we have), they are worthy of bug reports. There's a bug already: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189069 Filed 2006-04-15, not closed, but seems it was fixed (at least the http://fedora.redhat.com/download/ vs. http://fedora.redhat.com/Download/ mentioned in the inital report. Didn#t look at the other URLs I added some of the other pages google found. But that's a hard job -- someone really should use "find" and/or "grep" on the server to locate all the other old pages and fix them afterwards. Cu thl From mspevack at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 15:18:58 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages Message-ID: So, the test2 freeze is coming up in a couple of days, and I'm wondering if we can talk about a few different things regarding the package manifest for fc6. For users, developers, media, etc. I think it would be really useful to produce a couple of pieces of information somewhere on the wiki (if they're not already there): 1) New packages in fc6 that were not in fc5 2) Removed packages that were in fc5 but are not in fc6 On that second point, when was the last time that we did a review of packages that could be a candidate for removal? We've had several suggestions in different lists about trimming down the size of Core. Can we talk about this and act (if that's the decision) prior to fc6? Hopefully we can discuss on this list today, and have a decision by the end of tomorrow's Board meeting. I'll be putting together an agenda for that today -- any suggestions to get it starting, post it to a thread called "Agenda 2006-07-18" or something and we'll work from there. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From tiemann at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 15:22:27 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:22:27 -0400 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:18 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > So, the test2 freeze is coming up in a couple of days, and I'm wondering > if we can talk about a few different things regarding the package manifest > for fc6. > > For users, developers, media, etc. I think it would be really useful to > produce a couple of pieces of information somewhere on the wiki (if > they're not already there): > > 1) New packages in fc6 that were not in fc5 > 2) Removed packages that were in fc5 but are not in fc6 Ditto for SE Linux policies and/or integration points. In a slide I did for a security talk I listed the SE Linux policies for fc3 vs. fc4 (about 6x more) and then pointed out that because of new mechanisms in fc5 (loadable policies), there are even more that cannot be found by looking at default policies. But I think that showing the continued progress of the targeted policy and the applications that have been "fixed" to work with SE Linux would be a big and positive boost. Heck, even I provided info on a way to make some CCRMA package "work" with SE Linux (and which is now upstream). M From gdk at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 15:36:58 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:36:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] More musings on the Fedora Logo In-Reply-To: <200607132134.33394.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <200607132134.33394.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: I've been banging the drum for two logos, but let's face facts... it's not gonna happen. I spent some time thinking about logo usage questions this weekend. Here's what I think we need: 1. THE SIMPLE CLICK-THRU AGREEMENT TO USE THE UNALTERED LOGO. For a subset of usages, this agreement should be sufficient. I know that Max has been working with folks on the legal team to build a simple web frontend that will collect data from requestors, present them with the terms of use, and provide them with a logo package. This will take a person (currently me) out of the loop for logo approval in 75% of the cases. We still need to figure out which subset of logo usages is ok for this kind of rubber stamp, though. Probably: + Web sites that discuss Fedora topics + Servers that run Fedora (we really should make a "powered by" button) 2. LOGO ART COMMITTEE. Lots of people want to use the logo to make their own derivative artwork. Given that we own the logo as a trademark, we can *never* allow this to happen an uncontrolled manner. This means that we need a body to review requests to distribute any logo modifications. This could potentially be a committee with very broad powers. One could imagine this committee approving, say, wallpapers and t-shirt designs and all kinds of stuff. Will this work? Will the Fedora community bother with this extra overhead? Honestly, I don't know. I don't think I would. Anyway, more to get off my chest -- I'm done on this topic for a while, I suspect. These issues are why Luis is considering letting the GNOME trademark lapse, heh. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Mon Jul 17 15:50:16 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:50:16 -0400 Subject: [fab] More musings on the Fedora Logo In-Reply-To: References: <1152425120.13590.5.camel@dragon.gja.in> <200607131505.28564.jkeating@redhat.com> <200607132134.33394.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1153151416.1336.9.camel@cutter> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:36 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > I've been banging the drum for two logos, but let's face facts... it's not > gonna happen. > umm. Why not? Maybe I missed something in this discussion but what's the barrier to having 2 logos? -sv From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 17 15:57:10 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:27:10 +0530 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44BBB356.3070009@fedoraproject.org> Max Spevack wrote: > So, the test2 freeze is coming up in a couple of days, and I'm wondering > if we can talk about a few different things regarding the package > manifest for fc6. > > For users, developers, media, etc. I think it would be really useful to > produce a couple of pieces of information somewhere on the wiki (if > they're not already there): > > 1) New packages in fc6 that were not in fc5 > 2) Removed packages that were in fc5 but are not in fc6 This will be part of the release notes just like in FC5 http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc5/#sn-PackageChanges > > On that second point, when was the last time that we did a review of > packages that could be a candidate for removal? We've had several > suggestions in different lists about trimming down the size of Core. A few recent discussions https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-June/msg00016.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-June/msg00038.html > Can we talk about this and act (if that's the decision) prior to fc6? We basically need a decision on KDE (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnleashKDE) which in turn depends on Anaconda support for Fedora Extras and availability of Fedora Extras repository in media. The larger question is what the focus of Fedora Core should be. Since Red Hat can use packages from Fedora Extras, whatever fits into RHEL isnt the decisive factor for Fedora Core anymore. Trimming down Fedora Core also makes it easier for the community to contribute better. > > Hopefully we can discuss on this list today, and have a decision by the > end of tomorrow's Board meeting. > > I'll be putting together an agenda for that today -- any suggestions to > get it starting, post it to a thread called "Agenda 2006-07-18" or > something and we'll work from there. > Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 17 16:01:25 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:31:25 +0530 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> Michael Tiemann wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:18 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: >> So, the test2 freeze is coming up in a couple of days, and I'm wondering >> if we can talk about a few different things regarding the package manifest >> for fc6. >> >> For users, developers, media, etc. I think it would be really useful to >> produce a couple of pieces of information somewhere on the wiki (if >> they're not already there): >> >> 1) New packages in fc6 that were not in fc5 >> 2) Removed packages that were in fc5 but are not in fc6 > > Ditto for SE Linux policies and/or integration points. In a slide I did > for a security talk I listed the SE Linux policies for fc3 vs. fc4 > (about 6x more) and then pointed out that because of new mechanisms in > fc5 (loadable policies), there are even more that cannot be found by > looking at default policies. But I think that showing the continued > progress of the targeted policy and the applications that have been > "fixed" to work with SE Linux would be a big and positive boost. Heck, > even I provided info on a way to make some CCRMA package "work" with SE > Linux (and which is now upstream). Are the slides you are talking about publicly available.? If you are talking about Fedora anywhere, please attach those slides to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Presentations Might consider being an ambassador too http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors Also, SELinux changes atleast in FC5 has been broadly documented http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/FC5Features http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/ We provide alteast provide references in the release notes. Rahul From gdk at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 17:25:44 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! (fwd) Message-ID: Looky here! Someone's doing something inventive with Fedora! http://www.linux-respin.org Anybody know who's behind this effort? --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:25:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Greg DeKoenigsberg To: famsco-list at redhat.com Subject: Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! And looky looky at this URL: http://www.linux-respin.org/tmcomply.html They've read the trademark guidelines, and presuming that their "plus" is provided as a clearly labeled post-install, they are within the guidelines. A very interesting effort. I wonder who's behind it? Difficult to find any actual contact info on the site. :) --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > The key question here is the "plus". > > What's the plus? Is it software in the Fedora universe? > > If it's not, they can't use the name. If it is, they can(1). It's as > simple as that. > > --g > > (1) OK, it *should* be as simple as that, and I think that since we've > given the Unity project the right to use the name on Fedora respins, it > should be fine. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org > Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Alex Maier wrote: > > > Besides from plagiarizing most of our homepage's copy, and using the > > logo without our permission, I don't see what else is wrong with this > > page. > > > > Offering an update subscription service and charging for it is quite > > permissible under GPL, isn't it? > > > > cheers, > > a > > > > On 7/17/06, Thomas Chung wrote: > > > Has anybody have any idea how many in violations with this site? > > > http://www.linux-respin.org/ > > > One of FWN readers reported and I'm deeply concerned. > > > Regards, > > > -- > > > Thomas Chung > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung > > > > > > -- > > > Famsco-list mailing list > > > Famsco-list at redhat.com > > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/famsco-list > > > > > > > > > -- > > Open Video Contest > > Powered by Creative Commons and Fedora Project > > http://creativecommons.org/video/openvideocontest/ > > > > -- > > Famsco-list mailing list > > Famsco-list at redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/famsco-list > > > > -- > Famsco-list mailing list > Famsco-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/famsco-list > From bob at bobjensen.com Mon Jul 17 17:41:32 2006 From: bob at bobjensen.com (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:41:32 -0500 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44BBCBCC.9070402@bobjensen.com> Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Looky here! Someone's doing something inventive with Fedora! > > http://www.linux-respin.org > > Anybody know who's behind this effort? > > --g > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org > Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:25:08 -0400 (EDT) > From: Greg DeKoenigsberg > To: famsco-list at redhat.com > Subject: Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! > > > And looky looky at this URL: > > http://www.linux-respin.org/tmcomply.html > > They've read the trademark guidelines, and presuming that their "plus" is > provided as a clearly labeled post-install, they are within the > guidelines. > > A very interesting effort. I wonder who's behind it? Difficult to find > any actual contact info on the site. :) > > --g > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org > Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > >> The key question here is the "plus". >> >> What's the plus? Is it software in the Fedora universe? >> >> If it's not, they can't use the name. If it is, they can(1). It's as >> simple as that. >> >> --g >> >> (1) OK, it *should* be as simple as that, and I think that since we've >> given the Unity project the right to use the name on Fedora respins, it >> should be fine. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org >> Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Alex Maier wrote: >> >>> Besides from plagiarizing most of our homepage's copy, and using the >>> logo without our permission, I don't see what else is wrong with this >>> page. >>> >>> Offering an update subscription service and charging for it is quite >>> permissible under GPL, isn't it? >>> >>> cheers, >>> a >>> >>> On 7/17/06, Thomas Chung wrote: >>>> Has anybody have any idea how many in violations with this site? >>>> http://www.linux-respin.org/ >>>> One of FWN readers reported and I'm deeply concerned. >>>> Regards, >>>> -- >>>> Thomas Chung >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > This is NOT related to the Fedora Unity project other than the plagiarism of parts of our site and press releases. -- Robert 'Bob' Jensen * * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BobJensen gpg fingerprint: F9F4 7243 4243 0043 2C45 97AF E8A4 C3AE 42EB 0BC6 Fedora Unity Project * bob at fedoraunity.org * http://fedoraunity.org/ From tiemann at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 17:47:26 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:47:26 -0400 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 21:31 +0530, Rahul wrote: > > Are the slides you are talking about publicly available.? If you are > talking about Fedora anywhere, please attach those slides to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Presentations I'll upload as OSS-SecTokyo.sxi . To my knowledge these slides contain no confidential nor copyrighted materials that I cannot post. However, I cannot seem to do that right now because even though I created a FedoraWiki account for myself, I'm not being offered the chance to edit this page. M From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 17 17:58:02 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:28:02 +0530 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> Michael Tiemann wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 21:31 +0530, Rahul wrote: > >> Are the slides you are talking about publicly available.? If you are >> talking about Fedora anywhere, please attach those slides to >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Presentations > > I'll upload as OSS-SecTokyo.sxi . To my knowledge these slides contain > no confidential nor copyrighted materials that I cannot post. > > However, I cannot seem to do that right now because even though I > created a FedoraWiki account for myself, I'm not being offered the > chance to edit this page. > Our counsel wants all Fedora contributors to sign the CLA. So you need to register in the account system and do that before being in the edit group. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EditGroup http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing Rahul Rahul From mspevack at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 18:20:38 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:20:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Looky here! Someone's doing something inventive with Fedora! > > http://www.linux-respin.org > > Anybody know who's behind this effort? As we have learned from Thomas Chung, it's led by Rob Garth http://fedoranews.org/cms/user/1148 Greg and I will take the point on this. It's important to me that it's handled in a friendly way, and we figure out if we can work with him, etc. and not have him get any sort of legal email, etc. Our response should be "cool, how can we integrate what this guy's doing into Fedora and make sure everything is compliant" and approach him that way. I'm particularly curious to know if he tried to submit the patches that he's providing back to us and got nowhere, or if he just never even bothered. --Max From tiemann at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 18:26:17 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:26:17 -0400 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153160777.4844.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 23:28 +0530, Rahul wrote: > > Our counsel wants all Fedora contributors to sign the CLA. So you need > to register in the account system and do that before being in the edit > group. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EditGroup > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing And a damn good thing, to. I've signed the CLA, registered, and edited the Presentations page. Thanks for bearing with me. Signed, A Clueless Noob From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 17 18:31:08 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:01:08 +0530 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <1153160777.4844.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> <1153160777.4844.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44BBD76C.6070301@fedoraproject.org> Michael Tiemann wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 23:28 +0530, Rahul wrote: > >> Our counsel wants all Fedora contributors to sign the CLA. So you need >> to register in the account system and do that before being in the edit >> group. >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EditGroup >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing > > And a damn good thing, to. I've signed the CLA, registered, and edited > the Presentations page. Thanks for bearing with me. > > Signed, > > A Clueless Noob > > Glad to help. Want to be an ambassador? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors Rahul From tiemann at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 18:34:14 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:34:14 -0400 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <44BBD76C.6070301@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> <1153160777.4844.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBD76C.6070301@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153161254.4844.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 00:01 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Glad to help. Want to be an ambassador? > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors I kinda am ;-) M From nman64 at n-man.com Mon Jul 17 18:47:06 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:47:06 -0500 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200607171347.09849.nman64@n-man.com> On Monday 17 July 2006 13:20, Max Spevack wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Looky here! Someone's doing something inventive with Fedora! > > > > http://www.linux-respin.org > > > > Anybody know who's behind this effort? > > As we have learned from Thomas Chung, it's led by Rob Garth > > http://fedoranews.org/cms/user/1148 > > Greg and I will take the point on this. It's important to me that it's > handled in a friendly way, and we figure out if we can work with him, etc. > and not have him get any sort of legal email, etc. > > Our response should be "cool, how can we integrate what this guy's > doing into Fedora and make sure everything is compliant" and approach him > that way. > > I'm particularly curious to know if he tried to submit the patches that > he's providing back to us and got nowhere, or if he just never even > bothered. > I never heard of any attempts to submit anything. The legal issues that my 5-minute review has found include: For the Fedora Project * Inclusion of third-party materials on installation media, with that media carrying the "Fedora" trademark. A violation of the trademark guidelines. * Inclusion of content from our wiki on the website. The content is covered by the OPL, which requires basic attribution for derivatives. That attribution is missing, leaving the site in violation of the OPL. * No clear offer for source code is provided for any part of the software. Unmodified bits might be provided by the Fedora Project, but source for the modifications, some of which (like the installer modifications) must be GPL, is not provided or offered. This is a violation of the GPL. For Fedora Unity: * Massive parts of the Fedora Unity site have been copied. The Fedora Unity content is licensed under the OPL. Again, no attribution is given. This is a second count of OPL violations. I might find more on a longer review. These are all things that must be corrected. I'll look deeper when I have more time. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bob at bobjensen.com Mon Jul 17 18:47:30 2006 From: bob at bobjensen.com (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:47:30 -0500 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44BBDB42.30006@bobjensen.com> Max Spevack wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > >> >> Looky here! Someone's doing something inventive with Fedora! >> >> http://www.linux-respin.org >> >> Anybody know who's behind this effort? > > As we have learned from Thomas Chung, it's led by Rob Garth > > http://fedoranews.org/cms/user/1148 > > Greg and I will take the point on this. It's important to me that it's > handled in a friendly way, and we figure out if we can work with him, > etc. and not have him get any sort of legal email, etc. > > Our response should be "cool, how can we integrate what this guy's doing > into Fedora and make sure everything is compliant" and approach him that > way. > > I'm particularly curious to know if he tried to submit the patches that > he's providing back to us and got nowhere, or if he just never even > bothered. > > --Max > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > I am not sure that Rob Garth is behind this. I think Rob is much more literate than the author of the pages that are original content. I have emailed Rob several times and this does not look at all like his style. There are OPL Violations for the derived work from the Fedora Unity Project that we will be looking at. Several pages of content are pretty much copied from the Fedora Unity Project sites and related Press Releases. http://www.linux-respin.org/newsdefault.html was derived from our press release for the re-spins, http://www.linux-respin.org/about.html was derived from our mission statement written the night we started the Unity Project. Pretty frustrating. On http://www.linux-respin.org/order.html they claim to be part of the "Fedora Free Media Program", is this true? -- Robert 'Bob' Jensen * * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BobJensen gpg fingerprint: F9F4 7243 4243 0043 2C45 97AF E8A4 C3AE 42EB 0BC6 Fedora Unity Project * bob at fedoraunity.org * http://fedoraunity.org/ From mspevack at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 18:49:49 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:49:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <1153160777.4844.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> <1153160777.4844.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Michael Tiemann wrote: > A Clueless Noob Yeah, can someone explain this whole OSS thing to Tiemann please. Sheesh. ;-) From mspevack at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 18:53:56 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:53:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200607171347.09849.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200607171347.09849.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > The legal issues that my 5-minute review has found include: > > For the Fedora Project > * Inclusion of third-party materials on installation media, with that media > carrying the "Fedora" trademark. A violation of the trademark guidelines. > * Inclusion of content from our wiki on the website. The content is covered > by the OPL, which requires basic attribution for derivatives. That > attribution is missing, leaving the site in violation of the OPL. > * No clear offer for source code is provided for any part of the software. > Unmodified bits might be provided by the Fedora Project, but source for the > modifications, some of which (like the installer modifications) must be GPL, > is not provided or offered. This is a violation of the GPL. > > For Fedora Unity: > * Massive parts of the Fedora Unity site have been copied. The Fedora Unity > content is licensed under the OPL. Again, no attribution is given. This is > a second count of OPL violations. > > I might find more on a longer review. These are all things that must be > corrected. I'll look deeper when I have more time. Yeah, this whole website is a giant mess of issues. Not good. Especially the GPL violation. --Max From tchung at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 17 20:43:16 2006 From: tchung at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Chung) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:43:16 -0700 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! (fwd) In-Reply-To: <44BBDB42.30006@bobjensen.com> References: <44BBDB42.30006@bobjensen.com> Message-ID: <369bce3b0607171343o20b34f8cl6e5bae2fc9c77e47@mail.gmail.com> On 7/17/06, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > On http://www.linux-respin.org/order.html they claim to be part of the > "Fedora Free Media Program", is this true? Not that I'm aware of since I'm the lead of Fedora Free Media Program. Here is a list of contributors. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/FreeMedia/Contributors Regards, -- Thomas Chung http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 17 21:03:01 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:33:01 +0530 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora Message-ID: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> Hi Ext3(ext2) are the only formally supported on disk filesystems in Fedora apart from GFS for clustering. There is a limited option for other filesystems like reiserfs, xfs and jfs which doesnt go much beyond packaging what upstream provides and which is only meant to be transiently used for people migrating off such filesystems. Moving such tools to Fedora Extras doesnt help since Anaconda wouldnt support it during installation time. I am not sure this would make sense even if Anaconda gets support for Fedora Extras. Community participation on such things tend to be limited due to the amount of expertise required. The large impact of such a core piece of technology needs to be taken into account here. I believe it is better to get them supported or drop them completely instead of the current status quo which leads to a less tested and potentially dangerous option being provided to provided to end users (though they have to enable it explicitly). Without good support, things like SELinux in reiserfs to pick a example would end up being broken now and then and that isnt a good thing at all. Realistically we need to make a hard choice on this. explain that well, stick to that and make sure that support well what we do rather than provide a multitude of half baked options (kernel-unsupported comes to mind for those aware of the pains we had with it). Rahul From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Mon Jul 17 21:10:12 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:10:12 -0400 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153170613.1336.79.camel@cutter> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 02:33 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Hi > > Ext3(ext2) are the only formally supported on disk filesystems in Fedora > apart from GFS for clustering. There is a limited option for other > filesystems like reiserfs, xfs and jfs which doesnt go much beyond > packaging what upstream provides and which is only meant to be > transiently used for people migrating off such filesystems. > > Moving such tools to Fedora Extras doesnt help since Anaconda wouldnt > support it during installation time. I am not sure this would make sense > even if Anaconda gets support for Fedora Extras. Community participation > on such things tend to be limited due to the amount of expertise > required. The large impact of such a core piece of technology needs to > be taken into account here. > > I believe it is better to get them supported or drop them completely > instead of the current status quo which leads to a less tested and > potentially dangerous option being provided to provided to end users > (though they have to enable it explicitly). Without good support, things > like SELinux in reiserfs to pick a example would end up being broken now > and then and that isnt a good thing at all. > > Realistically we need to make a hard choice on this. explain that well, > stick to that and make sure that support well what we do rather than > provide a multitude of half baked options (kernel-unsupported comes to > mind for those aware of the pains we had with it). > Why wouldn't this sort of technical decision be made by the installer maintainers? -sv From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 21:11:32 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:11:32 -0400 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200607171711.35987.jkeating@redhat.com> On Monday 17 July 2006 17:03, Rahul wrote: > I believe it is better to get them supported or drop them completely > instead of the current status quo which leads to a less tested and > potentially dangerous option being provided to provided to end users > (though they have to enable it explicitly). Without good support, things > like SELinux in reiserfs to pick a example would end up being broken now > and then and that isnt a good thing at all. > > Realistically we need to make a hard choice on this. explain that well, > stick to that and make sure that support well what we do rather than > provide a multitude of half baked options (kernel-unsupported comes to > mind for those aware of the pains we had with it). There are people out there that use these for more than just migration. There are people that do NOT use selinux, nor wish to, and for them these file systems work well enough. If we don't provide what we're doing now, these people will be looking for rebuilds of the distro/installer with support for said file systems. We don't want that, we want to encourage people to play in our sandbox. We could do a popup window (much like we do for rawhide installs) when reiserfs or xfs options are detected with a bit "Warning: this file system may eat your baby" or even a paren next to the file system option when choosing to format (UNSUPPORTED FS!). We provide _lots_ of ways for our users to shoot themselves in the foot. This is just one of them. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 17 21:14:01 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:44:01 +0530 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <1153170613.1336.79.camel@cutter> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> <1153170613.1336.79.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <44BBFD99.80706@fedoraproject.org> seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 02:33 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> Hi >> >> Ext3(ext2) are the only formally supported on disk filesystems in Fedora >> apart from GFS for clustering. There is a limited option for other >> filesystems like reiserfs, xfs and jfs which doesnt go much beyond >> packaging what upstream provides and which is only meant to be >> transiently used for people migrating off such filesystems. >> >> Moving such tools to Fedora Extras doesnt help since Anaconda wouldnt >> support it during installation time. I am not sure this would make sense >> even if Anaconda gets support for Fedora Extras. Community participation >> on such things tend to be limited due to the amount of expertise >> required. The large impact of such a core piece of technology needs to >> be taken into account here. >> >> I believe it is better to get them supported or drop them completely >> instead of the current status quo which leads to a less tested and >> potentially dangerous option being provided to provided to end users >> (though they have to enable it explicitly). Without good support, things >> like SELinux in reiserfs to pick a example would end up being broken now >> and then and that isnt a good thing at all. >> >> Realistically we need to make a hard choice on this. explain that well, >> stick to that and make sure that support well what we do rather than >> provide a multitude of half baked options (kernel-unsupported comes to >> mind for those aware of the pains we had with it). >> > > Why wouldn't this sort of technical decision be made by the installer > maintainers? > This has similarities to the RPM discussion that came up recently. Though it is a specific package, any changes has a large impact. It is better to have a wider look at this IMO. Rahul From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Mon Jul 17 21:16:47 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:16:47 -0400 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <44BBFD99.80706@fedoraproject.org> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> <1153170613.1336.79.camel@cutter> <44BBFD99.80706@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153171007.1336.85.camel@cutter> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 02:44 +0530, Rahul wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 02:33 +0530, Rahul wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> Ext3(ext2) are the only formally supported on disk filesystems in Fedora > >> apart from GFS for clustering. There is a limited option for other > >> filesystems like reiserfs, xfs and jfs which doesnt go much beyond > >> packaging what upstream provides and which is only meant to be > >> transiently used for people migrating off such filesystems. > >> > >> Moving such tools to Fedora Extras doesnt help since Anaconda wouldnt > >> support it during installation time. I am not sure this would make sense > >> even if Anaconda gets support for Fedora Extras. Community participation > >> on such things tend to be limited due to the amount of expertise > >> required. The large impact of such a core piece of technology needs to > >> be taken into account here. > >> > >> I believe it is better to get them supported or drop them completely > >> instead of the current status quo which leads to a less tested and > >> potentially dangerous option being provided to provided to end users > >> (though they have to enable it explicitly). Without good support, things > >> like SELinux in reiserfs to pick a example would end up being broken now > >> and then and that isnt a good thing at all. > >> > >> Realistically we need to make a hard choice on this. explain that well, > >> stick to that and make sure that support well what we do rather than > >> provide a multitude of half baked options (kernel-unsupported comes to > >> mind for those aware of the pains we had with it). > >> > > > > Why wouldn't this sort of technical decision be made by the installer > > maintainers? > > > > This has similarities to the RPM discussion that came up recently. > Though it is a specific package, any changes has a large impact. It is > better to have a wider look at this IMO. > I disagree. We're not debating the technical merits with rpm. We're debating the political and policy issues with regard to the current interaction with the upstream rpm maintainer. In all cases where there is not a significant policy clash with the upstream maintainer then we defer to the judgment of the upstream. In this case upstream is the maintainers/developers of anaconda and the kernel. -sv From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 17 21:23:04 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:53:04 +0530 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <1153171007.1336.85.camel@cutter> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> <1153170613.1336.79.camel@cutter> <44BBFD99.80706@fedoraproject.org> <1153171007.1336.85.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <44BBFFB8.904@fedoraproject.org> seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 02:44 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> seth vidal wrote: >>> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 02:33 +0530, Rahul wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Ext3(ext2) are the only formally supported on disk filesystems in Fedora >>>> apart from GFS for clustering. There is a limited option for other >>>> filesystems like reiserfs, xfs and jfs which doesnt go much beyond >>>> packaging what upstream provides and which is only meant to be >>>> transiently used for people migrating off such filesystems. >>>> >>>> Moving such tools to Fedora Extras doesnt help since Anaconda wouldnt >>>> support it during installation time. I am not sure this would make sense >>>> even if Anaconda gets support for Fedora Extras. Community participation >>>> on such things tend to be limited due to the amount of expertise >>>> required. The large impact of such a core piece of technology needs to >>>> be taken into account here. >>>> >>>> I believe it is better to get them supported or drop them completely >>>> instead of the current status quo which leads to a less tested and >>>> potentially dangerous option being provided to provided to end users >>>> (though they have to enable it explicitly). Without good support, things >>>> like SELinux in reiserfs to pick a example would end up being broken now >>>> and then and that isnt a good thing at all. >>>> >>>> Realistically we need to make a hard choice on this. explain that well, >>>> stick to that and make sure that support well what we do rather than >>>> provide a multitude of half baked options (kernel-unsupported comes to >>>> mind for those aware of the pains we had with it). >>>> >>> Why wouldn't this sort of technical decision be made by the installer >>> maintainers? >>> >> This has similarities to the RPM discussion that came up recently. >> Though it is a specific package, any changes has a large impact. It is >> better to have a wider look at this IMO. >> > > I disagree. > > We're not debating the technical merits with rpm. We're debating the > political and policy issues with regard to the current interaction with > the upstream rpm maintainer. > > In all cases where there is not a significant policy clash with the > upstream maintainer then we defer to the judgment of the upstream. We arent debating the technical merits of these filesystem now either. Whether the installer and the distribution should support these filesystems is a matter of policy and one which has a large impact on end users. > > In this case upstream is the maintainers/developers of anaconda and the > kernel. I can see this view point. Rahul From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Mon Jul 17 21:49:24 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian.Iseli at licr.org) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:49:24 +0200 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:18:58 EDT." Message-ID: <200607172149.k6HLnS1E010714@mx1.redhat.com> mspevack at redhat.com said: > 2) Removed packages that were in fc5 but are not in fc6 There's an automatically generated list here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageStatus#head-429e12c728f3cc48b33af904a3b608471742c522 It won't account for packages moved to Extras, though... Cheers, Christian From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 17 21:51:25 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:21:25 +0530 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <200607172149.k6HLnS1E010714@mx1.redhat.com> References: <200607172149.k6HLnS1E010714@mx1.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44BC065D.3080907@fedoraproject.org> Christian.Iseli at licr.org wrote: > mspevack at redhat.com said: >> 2) Removed packages that were in fc5 but are not in fc6 > > There's an automatically generated list here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageStatus#head-429e12c728f3cc48b33af904a3b608471742c522 > > It won't account for packages moved to Extras, though... > Renamed, obsoleted or merged packages either. Rahul From bob at bobjensen.com Mon Jul 17 21:54:31 2006 From: bob at bobjensen.com (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:54:31 -0500 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] Fedora Core 5 Re-Spin Plus! (fwd) In-Reply-To: <369bce3b0607171343o20b34f8cl6e5bae2fc9c77e47@mail.gmail.com> References: <44BBDB42.30006@bobjensen.com> <369bce3b0607171343o20b34f8cl6e5bae2fc9c77e47@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44BC0717.6020608@bobjensen.com> Thomas Chung wrote: > On 7/17/06, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: >> On http://www.linux-respin.org/order.html they claim to be part of the >> "Fedora Free Media Program", is this true? > > Not that I'm aware of since I'm the lead of Fedora Free Media Program. > Here is a list of contributors. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/FreeMedia/Contributors > Regards, Pretty low IMO to be asking for donations when they are not members of that program as they claim. Can you say fraud? -- Robert 'Bob' Jensen * * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BobJensen gpg fingerprint: F9F4 7243 4243 0043 2C45 97AF E8A4 C3AE 42EB 0BC6 Fedora Unity Project * bob at fedoraunity.org * http://fedoraunity.org/ From matt at domsch.com Mon Jul 17 23:27:36 2006 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:27:36 -0500 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <200607171711.35987.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> <200607171711.35987.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060717232736.GA21856@domsch.com> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:11:32PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > We provide _lots_ of ways for our users to shoot themselves in the foot. This > is just one of them. The kernel includes lots of drivers which one could probably consider "unsupported", if only because no Fedora developers have the hardware. How is a file system (that's already in the kernel) any different? -Matt From notting at redhat.com Mon Jul 17 23:05:46 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:05:46 -0400 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <200607171711.35987.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> <200607171711.35987.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060717230546.GA3257@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: > There are people out there that use these for more than just migration. There > are people that do NOT use selinux, nor wish to, and for them these file > systems work well enough. > > If we don't provide what we're doing now, these people will be looking for > rebuilds of the distro/installer with support for said file systems. We > don't want that, we want to encourage people to play in our sandbox. We > could do a popup window (much like we do for rawhide installs) when reiserfs > or xfs options are detected with a bit "Warning: this file system may eat > your baby" or even a paren next to the file system option when choosing to > format (UNSUPPORTED FS!). > > We provide _lots_ of ways for our users to shoot themselves in the foot. This > is just one of them. Realistically, to install to it, you *already* need to know what you're doing. I don't think any additional dialogs are necessary. Moreover, the framework for contribution is there, although it's not the cleanest. By following the upstream kernel, we make sure that anyone who works with upstream for those filesystems gets their stuff merged; beyond that, it would be a) updating the userspace tools b) getting any needed patches into anaconda. a) can't be done by any random volunteers, but b) certainly could be. Bill From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Jul 18 00:27:01 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:27:01 -0500 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153182421.12401.42.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 02:33 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Hi > > Ext3(ext2) are the only formally supported on disk filesystems in Fedora > apart from GFS for clustering. There is a limited option for other > filesystems like reiserfs, xfs and jfs which doesnt go much beyond > packaging what upstream provides and which is only meant to be > transiently used for people migrating off such filesystems. > > Moving such tools to Fedora Extras doesnt help since Anaconda wouldnt > support it during installation time. I am not sure this would make sense > even if Anaconda gets support for Fedora Extras. Community participation > on such things tend to be limited due to the amount of expertise > required. The large impact of such a core piece of technology needs to > be taken into account here. > > I believe it is better to get them supported or drop them completely > instead of the current status quo which leads to a less tested and > potentially dangerous option being provided to provided to end users > (though they have to enable it explicitly). Without good support, things > like SELinux in reiserfs to pick a example would end up being broken now > and then and that isnt a good thing at all. > > Realistically we need to make a hard choice on this. explain that well, > stick to that and make sure that support well what we do rather than > provide a multitude of half baked options (kernel-unsupported comes to > mind for those aware of the pains we had with it). Just to clarify, are you simply talking about what Anaconda will support during install? Or are you talking about dropping these filesystems from the kernel all together? josh From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jul 18 00:38:58 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 06:08:58 +0530 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <1153182421.12401.42.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> <1153182421.12401.42.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <44BC2DA2.4040405@fedoraproject.org> Josh Boyer wrote: > > Just to clarify, are you simply talking about what Anaconda will support > during install? Or are you talking about dropping these filesystems > from the kernel all together? > Anaconda and user space tools. I am not advocating modifying the kernel at any rate. Rahul From katzj at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 00:59:41 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:59:41 -0400 Subject: [fab] Filesystems support in Fedora In-Reply-To: <20060717230546.GA3257@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <44BBFB05.3030609@fedoraproject.org> <200607171711.35987.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060717230546.GA3257@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1153184381.21547.2.camel@aglarond.local> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 19:05 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Moreover, the framework for contribution is there, although it's not the > cleanest. By following the upstream kernel, we make sure that anyone who > works with upstream for those filesystems gets their stuff merged; beyond > that, it would be a) updating the userspace tools b) getting any needed > patches into anaconda. a) can't be done by any random volunteers, but > b) certainly could be. And actually, random volunteers can do most of the work of the userspace tool updates too -- rsc did most of the work[1] to get xfsprogs updated (although the build then failed on ppc64 which I still need to harass dwmw2 into looking at ;) Jeremy [1] Thanks Robert! From mwebbink at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 12:18:52 2006 From: mwebbink at redhat.com (Mark Webbink) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:18:52 -0400 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> Just for clarification, Red Hat employees do not need to sign a Fedora CLA. Rahul wrote: > Michael Tiemann wrote: > >> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 21:31 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> >>> Are the slides you are talking about publicly available.? If you are >>> talking about Fedora anywhere, please attach those slides to >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Presentations >> >> >> I'll upload as OSS-SecTokyo.sxi . To my knowledge these slides contain >> no confidential nor copyrighted materials that I cannot post. >> >> However, I cannot seem to do that right now because even though I >> created a FedoraWiki account for myself, I'm not being offered the >> chance to edit this page. >> > > Our counsel wants all Fedora contributors to sign the CLA. So you need > to register in the account system and do that before being in the edit > group. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EditGroup > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing > > Rahul > > Rahul > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Tue Jul 18 12:23:30 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:23:30 -0400 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1153225411.4234.49.camel@cutter> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 08:18 -0400, Mark Webbink wrote: > Just for clarification, Red Hat employees do not need to sign a Fedora > CLA. > What happens to that agreement if they cease to be red hat employees but continue to be fedora contributors? -sv From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 12:28:53 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:28:53 -0400 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> References: <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200607180828.56405.jkeating@redhat.com> On Tuesday 18 July 2006 08:18, Mark Webbink wrote: > Just for clarification, Red Hat employees do not need to sign a Fedora CLA. Perhaps from a legal standpoint at this exact moment in time. However it makes more sense to have the policy apply to ANYBODY so that if they ever leave Red Hat we still have an agreement with them, and Red Hat people aren't special cased. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matt at domsch.com Tue Jul 18 12:30:07 2006 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:30:07 -0500 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <1153225411.4234.49.camel@cutter> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> <1153225411.4234.49.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <20060718123007.GA28416@domsch.com> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 08:23:30AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 08:18 -0400, Mark Webbink wrote: > > Just for clarification, Red Hat employees do not need to sign a Fedora > > CLA. > > > > What happens to that agreement if they cease to be red hat employees but > continue to be fedora contributors? I would expect that, while covered under someone's corporate CLA, a contributor is bould to that. After they no longer are associated with that company, they no longer have a CLA in place unless/until they sign a new individual or corporate CLA. -Matt From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 13:19:23 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:19:23 -0400 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <20060718123007.GA28416@domsch.com> References: <1153225411.4234.49.camel@cutter> <20060718123007.GA28416@domsch.com> Message-ID: <200607180919.27402.jkeating@redhat.com> On Tuesday 18 July 2006 08:30, Matt Domsch wrote: > I would expect that, while covered under someone's corporate CLA, a > contributor is bould to that. ?After they no longer are associated > with that company, they no longer have a CLA in place unless/until > they sign a new individual or corporate CLA. Which would be extremely difficult to track when who leaves what company, and was any content modified during the time that (s)he had to file a new CLA. This is why having everybody sign one is important. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 13:59:19 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:59:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <200607180828.56405.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> <200607180828.56405.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 18 July 2006 08:18, Mark Webbink wrote: >> Just for clarification, Red Hat employees do not need to sign a Fedora CLA. > > Perhaps from a legal standpoint at this exact moment in time. However > it makes more sense to have the policy apply to ANYBODY so that if they > ever leave Red Hat we still have an agreement with them, and Red Hat > people aren't special cased. Setting aside the exact details of legal compliance, I think we should have *everyone* sign the thing. It is one of those policies that isn't difficult to have in place, and it prevents us from having a "special treatment" kind of thing. We want Fedora to be egalitarian. Everyone should sign the CLA, if not for a legal requirement, then for a "correctness" requirement. Most of the RH folks contributing have signed it already. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 14:01:55 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] linux-respin.org followup Message-ID: gdk and I managed to get in touch with the guy who runs the site. He sent us both an email that's waiting in our inboxes this morning. It's fairly long, so I need to read through it carefully, but I just wanted to let people know that we made contact, and we'll go from there. Further updates and events warrant. -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 14:14:53 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:14:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Fedora Board meeting today Message-ID: The Fedora Board meets this afternoon. The number of topics we could potentially discuss far exceeds the hour of time that we have allotted, but here's a list of discussion items: - closure on the RPM discussion - decision on: can we trim down Core at all for fc6? - run whatever we suggest by Jesse Keating before it's final - licensing/logo/etc. issues - closure on the filesystems discussion - Plone (issues, status, etc.) - FUDCon update (if there's time) - Anything else people want to discuss -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Jul 18 14:21:43 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:21:43 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fedora Board meeting today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1153232503.31703.28.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 10:14 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > The Fedora Board meets this afternoon. > > The number of topics we could potentially discuss far exceeds the hour of > time that we have allotted, but here's a list of discussion items: > - Anything else people want to discuss Perhaps not at this meeting, but there should be some discussion and agreement on where to document policies between Committees. Like the recent "packaging committee waits a week before making changes official to allow comments from Extras/Core" stuff. It needs to be documented somewhere so that as people come and go from said committees, it doesn't get forgotten. josh From nman64 at n-man.com Tue Jul 18 14:47:06 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:47:06 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fedora Board meeting today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200607180947.09881.nman64@n-man.com> On Tuesday 18 July 2006 09:14, Max Spevack wrote: > The Fedora Board meets this afternoon. > > The number of topics we could potentially discuss far exceeds the hour of > time that we have allotted, but here's a list of discussion items: > > - closure on the RPM discussion > - decision on: can we trim down Core at all for fc6? > - run whatever we suggest by Jesse Keating before it's final > - licensing/logo/etc. issues > - closure on the filesystems discussion > - Plone (issues, status, etc.) My latest dump on the subject: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/PloneToDo The Docs Project's questions: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/PloneIssues > - FUDCon update (if there's time) > - Anything else people want to discuss -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tiemann at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 15:22:21 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:22:21 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Board meeting today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1153236142.3875.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 10:14 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > The Fedora Board meets this afternoon. > > The number of topics we could potentially discuss far exceeds the hour of > time that we have allotted, but here's a list of discussion items: > > - closure on the RPM discussion > - decision on: can we trim down Core at all for fc6? > - run whatever we suggest by Jesse Keating before it's final > - licensing/logo/etc. issues I presume the licensing topic means that "all Fedora-approved licenses are legit free sw licenses" (as defined at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html ). From the past analysis, the exceptions to these rules are largely exceptions to the OSI-approved licenses as well. M From sopwith at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 15:31:16 2006 From: sopwith at redhat.com (Elliot Lee) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:31:16 -0400 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> References: <1153149747.4844.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBB455.5040008@fedoraproject.org> <1153158446.4844.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Jul 18, 2006, at 08:18, Mark Webbink wrote: > Just for clarification, Red Hat employees do not need to sign a > Fedora CLA. This is correct. However from the technical perspective, we want to verify that people signing up are who they say they are, and the CLA process also currently does double duty as the "verify GPG key and e- mail address" step in the contributor sign-up process. So practically speaking, everyone currently does need to go through the CLA web forms, even if it isn't needed on the legal level. Account System v2 can fix this by specifically supporting the CCLA... Best, -- Elliot > Rahul wrote: >> Michael Tiemann wrote: >>> On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 21:31 +0530, Rahul wrote: >>> >>>> Are the slides you are talking about publicly available.? If you >>>> are talking about Fedora anywhere, please attach those slides to >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Presentations >>> >>> I'll upload as OSS-SecTokyo.sxi . To my knowledge these slides >>> contain >>> no confidential nor copyrighted materials that I cannot post. >>> >>> However, I cannot seem to do that right now because even though I >>> created a FedoraWiki account for myself, I'm not being offered the >>> chance to edit this page. >>> >> >> Our counsel wants all Fedora contributors to sign the CLA. So you >> need to register in the account system and do that before being in >> the edit group. >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EditGroup >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing >> >> Rahul >> >> Rahul >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fedora-advisory-board mailing list >> fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com >> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 18:41:39 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:41:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] board meeting, revised agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Revised agenda, having finally made it all the way through my backlog of f-a-b emails: Here's today's topics in the order that they will be discussed, anything there's no time for will be finished on-list: - proper closure on the RPM discussion - clarificaion of fc6 decision - the "future" decision, also with clarification - take action on removing the "black hole" that is Fedora Core decision making, getting transparency here - directly following that, can we trim down core for fc6 at all? - two filesystems threads, let's close those off also, and publicize what is decided Things I don't think we need to talk about: - Logo. The talk has happened. Action is needed. - Plone. Patrick filled us in on-list. - FUDCon. I will send an email to the list. -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 18:49:36 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] FUDCon update Message-ID: The two potential FUDCon's on the table: 1. FUDCon Silicon Valley (October-ish 2006) Current Owners: Max Spevack, Greg DeKoenigsberg - Will hear back from Stanford by end of week if they are able to be our host, and hopefully nail down the date. - If not, we will contact San Jose State University, as Fedora has some ties to their LUG. - Considering a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcamp format - Planet CCRMA, Creative Commons potentially for keynotes. Max's dream is to get Lawrence Lessig to speak. 2. FUDCon Brazil (Early 2007 ???) Current Owners: Max Spevack, David Barzilay - Early discussion, planning phase with various folks down in Brazil. They recommend the 2007 timeframe, for planning purposes, and also due to the general conference schedule in that region. -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 18:56:43 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:56:43 -0700 Subject: [fab] fc6 -- new, removed packages In-Reply-To: References: <44BBCFAA.9060804@fedoraproject.org> <44BCD1AC.6060704@redhat.com> <200607180828.56405.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1153249003.2589.107.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 09:59 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > We want Fedora to be egalitarian. Everyone should sign the CLA, if not > for a legal requirement, then for a "correctness" requirement. Most of > the RH folks contributing have signed it already. We have definitely explained the situation in this light several times. When we had to shut down the Wiki access to get CLAs from everyone, I think it was a positive point for the Project that we required it from all contributors equally. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tiemann at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 19:02:36 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:02:36 -0400 Subject: [fab] FUDCon update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1153249356.3875.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 14:49 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > 2. FUDCon Brazil (Early 2007 ???) > > Current Owners: Max Spevack, David Barzilay > > - Early discussion, planning phase with various folks down in Brazil. > They recommend the 2007 timeframe, for planning purposes, and also due to > the general conference schedule in that region. I'll defer to David as the expert on this subject, but from my experience at FISL 7, let me say that (1) Brazil's a great place for promoting Fedora, (2) the Debian guys support Debian like it's the national football team--they are loud, they wear the shirts, etc, (3) demonstrable progress of support of Brazilian Portuguese will be important and (4) there are some really substantial resources in the public sector that we can motivate to represent our side--SERPRO, Gov't of Parana, folks at various banks, etc. I think if we keep these things in mind, we can plan a good FUDcon. M From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 19:11:03 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:11:03 -0700 Subject: [fab] FUDCon update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1153249863.2589.113.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 14:49 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > - Considering a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcamp format +1 I can state clearly that, the more like a Barcamp it is, the more involved I can become. By this I mean, if the leading-up-to-the-event administrivia is too burdensome, it takes all the fun out of it. Bah! If all the lead-up focus is on attendance and getting one's self prepared, then I think we'll have a good attendance and a really fun time. So, if we settle on the date, location, and format as Barcamp, I will immediately begin the serious PR down here. Fortunately for me, the name 'Karsten' gets folks on e.g. SVLUG to read the email, even if it turns out I am not the Karsten they thought I was. Also, let's get Tony Guntharp involved in the same stuff. He's another SV Ambassador with a lot of good local connections. If we are looking for a sponsor or similar relationship, perhaps Google might be good. Or do we need to do that? - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jul 18 19:13:19 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:13:19 -0700 Subject: [fab] Fedora Board meeting today In-Reply-To: <1153232503.31703.28.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1153232503.31703.28.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1153249999.2589.116.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 09:21 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 10:14 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > > The Fedora Board meets this afternoon. > > > > The number of topics we could potentially discuss far exceeds the hour of > > time that we have allotted, but here's a list of discussion items: > > > - Anything else people want to discuss > > Perhaps not at this meeting, but there should be some discussion and > agreement on where to document policies between Committees. Like the > recent "packaging committee waits a week before making changes official > to allow comments from Extras/Core" stuff. It needs to be documented > somewhere so that as people come and go from said committees, it doesn't > get forgotten. fp.o/wiki/Committees/Policies? We've been learning ad hoc from each other from the beginning. Some more formality at this point seems called for. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From gdk at redhat.com Thu Jul 20 23:14:02 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Trademark in other projects Message-ID: Here's a great example of a project policing its mark: Jabber. http://www.jabber.org/trademark/ Anything we can learn? --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From notting at redhat.com Fri Jul 21 03:02:09 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:02:09 -0400 Subject: [fab] Trademark in other projects In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060721030209.GB8341@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Greg DeKoenigsberg (gdk at redhat.com) said: > > Here's a great example of a project policing its mark: Jabber. > > http://www.jabber.org/trademark/ > > Anything we can learn? For reference, our current guidlines are at: http://fedora.redhat.com/About/legal/trademarks/guidelines/ Bill From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 17:47:10 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:47:10 -0400 Subject: [fab] Trademark in other projects In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1153504030.481.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 19:14 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Here's a great example of a project policing its mark: Jabber. > > http://www.jabber.org/trademark/ > > Anything we can learn? 1. The paragraphs on fair use are of particular interest; you can do things like print T-shirts saying "Go Jabber(R)!" without asking, as long as you don't denigrate the product or community. (This is a clause we will absolutely need in any further licensing of the Fedora marks.) 2. Their "automated" application is not available, and apparently application has to be done manually through the executive director. Hmm, non-scalable. 3. Use of their "light bulb" logo is not included in the licensing terms. I like the fact that the guidelines are clear and readable to non-lawyers. (Ours aren't too bad either, for that matter.) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 12:22:53 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:22:53 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning Message-ID: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> As I mentioned briefly in Tuesday's meeting, I placed a short draft of an elections document at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning I'd appreciate any additional review and comment. (Comments may take the form of page edits.) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Jul 22 12:38:06 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:08:06 +0530 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> Paul W. Frields wrote: > As I mentioned briefly in Tuesday's meeting, I placed a short draft of > an elections document at: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning > > I'd appreciate any additional review and comment. (Comments may take > the form of page edits.) > Agreed on 1) and 2) on 3) Can we put 75% in numbers? What is the rationale behind having a limit on Red Hat or non Red Hat seats? IMO, if its a elected position, whoever gets elected should be deemed fit to do the job regardless of their affiliation. Is Max Spevack, the Fedora Board lead or he is the Fedora lead within Red Hat. If its the former, should it be a elected position by Fedora contributors (as defined by rule 4) or within the board? 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as a requirement might be abused. 5)Adopting the Fedora Extras voting infrastructure seems a good solution. Is that a generic app or does it require changes? 6) Unclear on what a 2/3 majority vote by "community" means. Who is the community here? I believe 2/3 majority vote by just the board is enough to decide. Rahul From gdk at redhat.com Sat Jul 22 12:45:59 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Rahul wrote: > on 3) Can we put 75% in numbers? What is the rationale behind having a > limit on Red Hat or non Red Hat seats? IMO, if its a elected position, > whoever gets elected should be deemed fit to do the job regardless of > their affiliation. Is Max Spevack, the Fedora Board lead or he is the > Fedora lead within Red Hat. If its the former, should it be a elected > position by Fedora contributors (as defined by rule 4) or within the board? Personally, I like the idea of splitting the board into two different term cycles. For example: Term A, elections after release of FC(even) Community 1 Community 2 Red Hat 1 Red Hat 2 Red Hat 3 Term B, elections after release of FC(odd) Community 3 Community 4 Red Hat 4 Red Hat 5 Gurantees continuity -- without math. :) --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From fedora at leemhuis.info Sat Jul 22 12:58:58 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:58:58 +0200 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44C22112.2090908@leemhuis.info> Hi! Paul W. Frields schrieb: > As I mentioned briefly in Tuesday's meeting, I placed a short draft of > an elections document at: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning One thing I miss: Who is permitted to Vote? Everyone listed in the Accounts System? > I'd appreciate any additional review and comment. (Comments may take > the form of page edits.) Just FYI, the first FESCo election finished some weeks ago (*1) and we (or, to be more precise: Toshio Kuratomi -- he wrote most of the voting app together with spot and some others) currently work out the details for future elections. Here are some comments that I send to Toshio in private some days ago that might be of interest for this discussion, too (stripped down slightly -- I removed those parts that were relevant for Extras only): > - the voting app worked fine afaics > > - only a small number of people voted -- next time we should make sure > that we send a mail directly to all people that are allowed to vote when > the election starts and one shortly before it ends to those that didn't > vote yet. The mail of course should contain link to the election > announcement and the URL to the voting web-interface. > > - Should we set a timeframe how long people can be in FESCo? e.g. after > two years people have to leave for at least one year before they can be > in FESCo again? Something similar for the FESCo chair? E.g. a rule that > the FESCo chair has to step down after one year? > > - Timeframe and scheme for next elections. Two scenarios: > > -- reelect half of the seats four weeks after each Fedora Core release > FC(x). Reelect the other half of the seats after FC(x+1). Reelect the > first half again after FC(x+2) > > -- reelect all the seats every two releases of core, e.g. FC(x), FC(c+2) > > - how many nominations do we want to require before a election can > start? Number of seats + x (x=1, 3, 5 or 25% of seats that get voted on)? > > - we should lay down what happens if someone from FESCo steps down. Who > get the seat? > > - should we changed the election-system? E.g. "there are 13 seats, > please vote for 13 persons, the 13 people with the most votes get in" vs > "please vote for as many members as you like; those 13 with the most > votes get in" (see also: > http://blogs.gnome.org/view/jamesh/2006/06/06/0 > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00180.html > ) Especially the last two points are important IMHO. BTW, a thread with discussions around the FESCo-Election can be found at: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00133.html CU thl (*1) -- that reminds be of something else: Should all or at least some of those that were elected into FESCo now be subscribed to be full members of this list? From fedora at leemhuis.info Sat Jul 22 12:59:42 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:59:42 +0200 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <44C2213E.8050708@leemhuis.info> Greg DeKoenigsberg schrieb: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Rahul wrote: >> on 3) Can we put 75% in numbers? What is the rationale behind having a >> limit on Red Hat or non Red Hat seats? IMO, if its a elected position, >> whoever gets elected should be deemed fit to do the job regardless of >> their affiliation. Is Max Spevack, the Fedora Board lead or he is the >> Fedora lead within Red Hat. If its the former, should it be a elected >> position by Fedora contributors (as defined by rule 4) or within the board? > Personally, I like the idea of splitting the board into two different term > cycles. For example: > > Term A, elections after release of FC(even) > Community 1 > Community 2 > Red Hat 1 > Red Hat 2 > Red Hat 3 > > Term B, elections after release of FC(odd) > Community 3 > Community 4 > Red Hat 4 > Red Hat 5 > > Gurantees continuity -- without math. :) +1 CU thl From stickster at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 14:05:53 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:05:53 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 18:08 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > As I mentioned briefly in Tuesday's meeting, I placed a short draft of > > an elections document at: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning > > > > I'd appreciate any additional review and comment. (Comments may take > > the form of page edits.) > > > > Agreed on 1) and 2) > > on 3) Can we put 75% in numbers? What is the rationale behind having a > limit on Red Hat or non Red Hat seats? IMO, if its a elected position, > whoever gets elected should be deemed fit to do the job regardless of > their affiliation. Is Max Spevack, the Fedora Board lead or he is the > Fedora lead within Red Hat. If its the former, should it be a elected > position by Fedora contributors (as defined by rule 4) or within the board? The point of the 75% is to keep all the Red Hat seats or all the community seats from turning over at one time in a single election. In other words, this measure assures some extra continuity. AFAIK Max's position is not an elected one; it's a paid position inside Red Hat and not subject to election. We can't really elect someone for Red Hat to put on salary, but we need that position at the top of the Board to help drive action in the company when needed. I thought I had written that in the plan, but I see now that revision was lost in all my rearranging. I'll get it back in. This would better be discussed after Max returns from vacation, so hold that thought until then. > 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group > like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has > signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are > not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as > a requirement might be abused. How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. > 5)Adopting the Fedora Extras voting infrastructure seems a good > solution. Is that a generic app or does it require changes? That's what I thought we should use too; I wanted to see what people here agreed on. I think it's pretty generic, but I haven't looked at the code at all. (I would probably leave that to someone who understood it better, truth be told.) > 6) Unclear on what a 2/3 majority vote by "community" means. Who is the > community here? I believe 2/3 majority vote by just the board is enough > to decide. The community is the eligible voters. I should make that more clear. A governing body shouldn't be able to unilaterally change election rules; that's pretty much a central tenet of voting rights. Dictators for life, anyone? No, let's make sure the community retains as much say as possible. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Jul 22 14:11:24 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:41:24 +0530 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> Paul W. Frields wrote: >> on 3) Can we put 75% in numbers? What is the rationale behind having a >> limit on Red Hat or non Red Hat seats? IMO, if its a elected position, >> whoever gets elected should be deemed fit to do the job regardless of >> their affiliation. Is Max Spevack, the Fedora Board lead or he is the >> Fedora lead within Red Hat. If its the former, should it be a elected >> position by Fedora contributors (as defined by rule 4) or within the board? > > The point of the 75% is to keep all the Red Hat seats or all the > community seats from turning over at one time in a single election. In > other words, this measure assures some extra continuity. AFAIK Max's > position is not an elected one; it's a paid position inside Red Hat and > not subject to election. We can't really elect someone for Red Hat to > put on salary, but we need that position at the top of the Board to help > drive action in the company when needed. I thought I had written that > in the plan, but I see now that revision was lost in all my rearranging. > I'll get it back in. This would better be discussed after Max returns > from vacation, so hold that thought until then. Right. So then do we need a elected lead? > >> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group >> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has >> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are >> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as >> a requirement might be abused. > > How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? > Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an > objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. > >> 5)Adopting the Fedora Extras voting infrastructure seems a good >> solution. Is that a generic app or does it require changes? > > That's what I thought we should use too; I wanted to see what people > here agreed on. I think it's pretty generic, but I haven't looked at > the code at all. (I would probably leave that to someone who understood > it better, truth be told.) > >> 6) Unclear on what a 2/3 majority vote by "community" means. Who is the >> community here? I believe 2/3 majority vote by just the board is enough >> to decide. > > The community is the eligible voters. I should make that more clear. A > governing body shouldn't be able to unilaterally change election rules; > that's pretty much a central tenet of voting rights. Dictators for > life, anyone? No, let's make sure the community retains as much say as > possible. So what is the procedure for community to bring a change? Rahul From stickster at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 14:17:22 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:17:22 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153577842.22412.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 08:45 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Rahul wrote: > > > on 3) Can we put 75% in numbers? What is the rationale behind having a > > limit on Red Hat or non Red Hat seats? IMO, if its a elected position, > > whoever gets elected should be deemed fit to do the job regardless of > > their affiliation. Is Max Spevack, the Fedora Board lead or he is the > > Fedora lead within Red Hat. If its the former, should it be a elected > > position by Fedora contributors (as defined by rule 4) or within the board? > > Personally, I like the idea of splitting the board into two different term > cycles. For example: > > Term A, elections after release of FC(even) > Community 1 > Community 2 > Red Hat 1 > Red Hat 2 > Red Hat 3 > > Term B, elections after release of FC(odd) > Community 3 > Community 4 > Red Hat 4 > Red Hat 5 > > Gurantees continuity -- without math. :) I'm cool with that. I just thought of another problem with the 75% rule, which would be if more than one person enter or leave Red Hat employment during their terms; it would then be possible to top 75% on one side or the other. Yeah, better to take it out. But the best statement would not be to label the seats by who's in RH and who's not, but rather to declare which ones *right now* will be up for election first, and then those "seat numbers" are from then on the division point. That way you avoid any murkiness if employment status changes for people. I know there's a good way to lay this out in the page; I'll take a crack at it. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 15:37:34 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:37:34 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153582654.22412.92.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 19:41 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> on 3) Can we put 75% in numbers? What is the rationale behind having a > >> limit on Red Hat or non Red Hat seats? IMO, if its a elected position, > >> whoever gets elected should be deemed fit to do the job regardless of > >> their affiliation. Is Max Spevack, the Fedora Board lead or he is the > >> Fedora lead within Red Hat. If its the former, should it be a elected > >> position by Fedora contributors (as defined by rule 4) or within the board? > > > > The point of the 75% is to keep all the Red Hat seats or all the > > community seats from turning over at one time in a single election. In > > other words, this measure assures some extra continuity. AFAIK Max's > > position is not an elected one; it's a paid position inside Red Hat and > > not subject to election. We can't really elect someone for Red Hat to > > put on salary, but we need that position at the top of the Board to help > > drive action in the company when needed. I thought I had written that > > in the plan, but I see now that revision was lost in all my rearranging. > > I'll get it back in. This would better be discussed after Max returns > > from vacation, so hold that thought until then. > > Right. So then do we need a elected lead? I don't think so; that's Max's job. Otherwise it's just adding another level of middle management. But hey, I could be wrong. > >> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group > >> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has > >> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are > >> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as > >> a requirement might be abused. > > > > How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? > > Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an > > objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. > > Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. Other than "cladone," then, and in "approved" status in the additional group. OK, I'll buy that for a dollar, +1. > >> 6) Unclear on what a 2/3 majority vote by "community" means. Who is the > >> community here? I believe 2/3 majority vote by just the board is enough > >> to decide. > > > > The community is the eligible voters. I should make that more clear. A > > governing body shouldn't be able to unilaterally change election rules; > > that's pretty much a central tenet of voting rights. Dictators for > > life, anyone? No, let's make sure the community retains as much say as > > possible. > > So what is the procedure for community to bring a change? That's a good question. Referenda normally need a specific trigger point, like signatures on a petition. What is a reasonable trigger, ten percent of the eligible voters? Fifteen? More? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From nman64 at n-man.com Sat Jul 22 15:49:10 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:49:10 -0500 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200607221049.13558.nman64@n-man.com> On Saturday 22 July 2006 09:11, Rahul wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group > >> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has > >> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are > >> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as > >> a requirement might be abused. > > > > How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? > > Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an > > objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. > > Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. > There is no reliable way to say who is active and who is not. It is trivial to gain membership in most of the groups in the Account System. Unless someone can think of a superior way to measure active contributors, I think the CLA requirement is the best we can do. -- Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes nman64 at n-man.com http://www.n-man.com/ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64 Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance! http://rate.affero.net/nman64/ -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gdk at redhat.com Sat Jul 22 19:04:27 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1153582654.22412.92.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> <1153582654.22412.92.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: > > > AFAIK Max's position is not an elected one; it's a paid position > > > inside Red Hat and not subject to election. We can't really elect > > > someone for Red Hat to put on salary, but we need that position at > > > the top of the Board to help drive action in the company when > > > needed. I thought I had written that in the plan, but I see now > > > that revision was lost in all my rearranging. I'll get it back in. > > > This would better be discussed after Max returns from vacation, so > > > hold that thought until then. > > > > Right. So then do we need a elected lead? > > I don't think so; that's Max's job. Otherwise it's just adding another > level of middle management. But hey, I could be wrong. We need to be clear and transparent on this point: Max is the appointed lead of the Fedora Project, period -- with veto power, period. Ubuntu has their SABDFL -- self-appointed benevolent dictator for life. We have our MABDUF -- Matthew-appointed benevolent dictator until fired. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sat Jul 22 21:00:36 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:00:36 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> <1153582654.22412.92.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1153602036.13330.7.camel@cutter> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 15:04 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > > AFAIK Max's position is not an elected one; it's a paid position > > > > inside Red Hat and not subject to election. We can't really elect > > > > someone for Red Hat to put on salary, but we need that position at > > > > the top of the Board to help drive action in the company when > > > > needed. I thought I had written that in the plan, but I see now > > > > that revision was lost in all my rearranging. I'll get it back in. > > > > This would better be discussed after Max returns from vacation, so > > > > hold that thought until then. > > > > > > Right. So then do we need a elected lead? > > > > I don't think so; that's Max's job. Otherwise it's just adding another > > level of middle management. But hey, I could be wrong. > > We need to be clear and transparent on this point: Max is the appointed > lead of the Fedora Project, period -- with veto power, period. > > Ubuntu has their SABDFL -- self-appointed benevolent dictator for life. > We have our MABDUF -- Matthew-appointed benevolent dictator until fired. > hey hey, let's be more clear. Our leader doesn't have to be fired. He could move on to more exciting things like trying to thwap large music companies. :) -sv From smooge at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 23:28:01 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:28:01 -0600 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> <1153582654.22412.92.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <80d7e4090607221628w50151197x9584dfcd7a6bea76@mail.gmail.com> On 7/22/06, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > > > AFAIK Max's position is not an elected one; it's a paid position > > > > inside Red Hat and not subject to election. We can't really elect > > > > someone for Red Hat to put on salary, but we need that position at > > > > the top of the Board to help drive action in the company when > > > > needed. I thought I had written that in the plan, but I see now > > > > that revision was lost in all my rearranging. I'll get it back in. > > > > This would better be discussed after Max returns from vacation, so > > > > hold that thought until then. > > > > > > Right. So then do we need a elected lead? > > > > I don't think so; that's Max's job. Otherwise it's just adding another > > level of middle management. But hey, I could be wrong. > > We need to be clear and transparent on this point: Max is the appointed > lead of the Fedora Project, period -- with veto power, period. > > Ubuntu has their SABDFL -- self-appointed benevolent dictator for life. > We have our MABDUF -- Matthew-appointed benevolent dictator until fired. > Oh,oh, oh, can I be the Matthew Appointed Lackie Tattood Hero Offering Positive Spin > --g > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org > Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From jkeating at redhat.com Sun Jul 23 00:35:03 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:35:03 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090607221628w50151197x9584dfcd7a6bea76@mail.gmail.com> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090607221628w50151197x9584dfcd7a6bea76@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200607222035.09389.jkeating@redhat.com> On Saturday 22 July 2006 19:28, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Matthew Appointed Lackie Tattood Hero Offering Positive Spin I thought that was me? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mspevack at redhat.com Sun Jul 23 00:59:08 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] 2006-07-18 meeting summary Message-ID: Reposting here, for those who don't frequently read f-announce-l. The meeting summary from the Board's 2006-07-18 meeting is now available. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2006-07-18 Topics discussed include: + RPM, which needs continued followup and discussion with the community + Fedora Bugs (bugzilla.redhat.com) + Fedora Core, the package set, and the schedule for fc6 + File Systems and Fedora + Various legal issues + Logo and Trademark The next meeting of the Board will be on 2006-08-01. Thanks, Max -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Jul 23 14:41:23 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:41:23 -0400 Subject: [fab] Trademark in other projects In-Reply-To: <1153504030.481.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153504030.481.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1153665683.13330.22.camel@cutter> On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 13:47 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 19:14 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Here's a great example of a project policing its mark: Jabber. > > > > http://www.jabber.org/trademark/ > > > > Anything we can learn? > > 1. The paragraphs on fair use are of particular interest; you can do > things like print T-shirts saying "Go Jabber(R)!" without asking, as > long as you don't denigrate the product or community. (This is a clause > we will absolutely need in any further licensing of the Fedora marks.) Do we really want to keep satirical and/or negative works out? I mean if someone wanted to use the fedora logo on a shirt at cafe press so it said: Fedora Sucks Do we really want to quash that? -sv From toshio at tiki-lounge.com Sun Jul 23 16:57:18 2006 From: toshio at tiki-lounge.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:57:18 -0700 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1153673839.3694.26.camel@localhost> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 10:05 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 18:08 +0530, Rahul wrote: > > 5)Adopting the Fedora Extras voting infrastructure seems a good > > solution. Is that a generic app or does it require changes? > > That's what I thought we should use too; I wanted to see what people > here agreed on. I think it's pretty generic, but I haven't looked at > the code at all. (I would probably leave that to someone who understood > it better, truth be told.) The election database is pretty generic. The front-end is a bit more specific. Creating a new template for a new election isn't that hard. It's python but currently doesn't tie into any of the nifty python web frameworks. Luke Macken has been working to update the TurboGears stack for the infrastructure group and I was hoping we'd be able to use that for enhancing the election app but I'll have to take a look at how easily it will integrate with our account system. On a slightly differecnt aspect, I'd like to avoid voter burnout. Since FESCo is currently planning on holding elections after every FC-release as well, perhaps we could try to make a combined ballot that has FESCo and the Board. If other fedora subprojects want to vote using the voting app at the same time (after FC-releases) we could have a ballot that lists all the issues an account holder is currently allowed to vote in and pulls up the ballots for each of those for the voter. I'm currently writing up a "Next FESCo election" email for discussion on extras-list and should be sending it sometime tonight. One of the points relate to whether we want to stay with the bloc voting model (vote for N seats among M candidates where M > N.) or change to something else (ranked voting, approval voting, etc). Since voting brings out the armchair analyst in people, I think we'll have a healthy and lively debate over this :-) -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From fedora at leemhuis.info Sun Jul 23 17:33:37 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:33:37 +0200 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1153673839.3694.26.camel@localhost> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1153673839.3694.26.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <44C3B2F1.2020600@leemhuis.info> Toshio Kuratomi schrieb: > On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 10:05 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >[...] > On a slightly differecnt aspect, I'd like to avoid voter burnout. Since > FESCo is currently planning on holding elections after every FC-release > as well, perhaps we could try to make a combined ballot that has FESCo > and the Board. If other fedora subprojects want to vote using the > voting app at the same time (after FC-releases) we could have a ballot > that lists all the issues an account holder is currently allowed to vote > in and pulls up the ballots for each of those for the voter. +1 CU thl From katzj at redhat.com Sun Jul 23 22:36:50 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:36:50 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1153694210.11317.17.camel@aglarond.local> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 08:22 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > As I mentioned briefly in Tuesday's meeting, I placed a short draft of > an elections document at: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning > > I'd appreciate any additional review and comment. (Comments may take > the form of page edits.) My recollection from previous discussion was that we weren't going to try to get into electing the Red Hat seats and instead leave it at the discretion of Red Hat as sponsoring the Fedora Project as to how they got filled. This was to avoid some of the concerns about "what if Joe gets shifted to working on something else", etc Jeremy From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 00:01:50 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:01:50 -0400 Subject: [fab] Trademark in other projects In-Reply-To: <1153665683.13330.22.camel@cutter> References: <1153504030.481.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1153665683.13330.22.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1153699310.22412.98.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 10:41 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 13:47 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 19:14 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > Here's a great example of a project policing its mark: Jabber. > > > > > > http://www.jabber.org/trademark/ > > > > > > Anything we can learn? > > > > 1. The paragraphs on fair use are of particular interest; you can do > > things like print T-shirts saying "Go Jabber(R)!" without asking, as > > long as you don't denigrate the product or community. (This is a clause > > we will absolutely need in any further licensing of the Fedora marks.) > > Do we really want to keep satirical and/or negative works out? > > I mean if someone wanted to use the fedora logo on a shirt at cafe press > so it said: > > Fedora Sucks > > Do we really want to quash that? It was an interesting clause, nothing more. I don't think we need to worry about it; hopefully we're not sucking enough to make anyone want to do this, and if we are.... eh?... -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 00:07:26 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:07:26 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1153694210.11317.17.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1153694210.11317.17.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <1153699646.22412.102.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 18:36 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 08:22 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > As I mentioned briefly in Tuesday's meeting, I placed a short draft of > > an elections document at: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning > > > > I'd appreciate any additional review and comment. (Comments may take > > the form of page edits.) > > My recollection from previous discussion was that we weren't going to > try to get into electing the Red Hat seats and instead leave it at the > discretion of Red Hat as sponsoring the Fedora Project as to how they > got filled. > > This was to avoid some of the concerns about "what if Joe gets shifted > to working on something else", etc Doesn't mean they can't be in the election... the contenders for two seats might be e.g. exactly two Red Hat employees. Vote for any two. :-) But if Red Hat has no preference between three, it could be left up to the community. Or not, see previous case. But if we don't want that door open even a crack, it needn't be. Opinions? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From gdk at redhat.com Mon Jul 24 14:01:39 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:01:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <200607222035.09389.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090607221628w50151197x9584dfcd7a6bea76@mail.gmail.com> <200607222035.09389.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Saturday 22 July 2006 19:28, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Matthew Appointed Lackie Tattood Hero Offering Positive Spin > > I thought that was me? Yeah. That's *totally* Jesse. Sorry, Smooge. :) --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From smooge at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 16:31:07 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:31:07 -0600 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <200607222035.09389.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090607221628w50151197x9584dfcd7a6bea76@mail.gmail.com> <200607222035.09389.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090607240931k4c547589k41e636bfeb197aed@mail.gmail.com> On 7/22/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Saturday 22 July 2006 19:28, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Matthew Appointed Lackie Tattood Hero Offering Positive Spin > > I thought that was me? > Darn it Mr Keating.. Again we see there is nothing I can possess which you cannot take away > -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Jul 25 22:43:17 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:43:17 -0500 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits Message-ID: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> Just occurred to me today that since our last meeting when we discussed the possibility of further Core pruning, some (more) kde bits came to mind: kdeaccessibility (~9MB) kdebindings (~9MB) kdeartwork-icons (~11MB) kdeedu (~30MB) kdegames (~11MB) kdeaddons (~3MB) (BR's kdegames-devel, xmms-devel) IMO, the best candidate is kdeartwork-icons, some optional/less-used icon themes. Next best would be kdeedu, since it's so big. (: I already have most of these already up for review (presumably for fc7/UnleashKDE purposes), so these could get moved to Extras relatively quickly. -- Rex From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Jul 26 13:35:26 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:35:26 -0400 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> On Tuesday 25 July 2006 18:43, Rex Dieter wrote: > kdeaccessibility (~9MB) Probably want left in until we have shippable Extras CDs. A lot of the folks that need these languages don't have high bandwidth. > kdebindings (~9MB) > kdeartwork-icons (~11MB) If this is extra icons, sure kick it. We have "extra" gnome icon sets in Extras too. > kdeedu (~30MB) That is big. I could see it going. > kdegames (~11MB) Please... (: > kdeaddons (~3MB) (BR's kdegames-devel, xmms-devel) addons, sounds like Extras too me. > > IMO, the best candidate is kdeartwork-icons, some optional/less-used > icon themes. ?Next best would be kdeedu, since it's so big. (: > > I already have most of these already up for review (presumably for > fc7/UnleashKDE purposes), so these could get moved to Extras relatively > quickly. How quickly? By Test2 release? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Jul 26 13:58:38 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:58:38 -0500 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <44C7750E.3000605@math.unl.edu> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 25 July 2006 18:43, Rex Dieter wrote: >> kdeaccessibility (~9MB) > > Probably want left in until we have shippable Extras CDs. A lot of the folks > that need these languages don't have high bandwidth. These are accessibility tools, not languages, but I can see these staying in. >> kdeartwork-icons (~11MB) > If this is extra icons, sure kick it. >> kdeedu (~30MB) > That is big. I could see it going. >> kdegames (~11MB) > Please... (: > >> kdeaddons (~3MB) (BR's kdegames-devel, xmms-devel) > addons, sounds like Extras too me. >> I already have most of these already up for review (presumably for >> fc7/UnleashKDE purposes), so these could get moved to Extras relatively >> quickly. > > How quickly? By Test2 release? Depends mostly on the packages getting reviewed and approved. (: kdeaccessibility: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194276 kdeartwork-extras (including icons): http://bugzilla.redhat.com/196379 kdebindings: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194280 kdeedu: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194373 kdegames [WWW] http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194374 I'll whip up a package review submission for kdeaddons asap. -- Rex From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Jul 26 14:12:36 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:12:36 -0500 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <44C7750E.3000605@math.unl.edu> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> <44C7750E.3000605@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <44C77854.1000009@math.unl.edu> Rex Dieter wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > I'll whip up a package review submission for kdeaddons asap. kdeaddons http://bugzilla.redhat.com/200236 -- Rex From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 26 14:21:39 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:51:39 +0530 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <44C7750E.3000605@math.unl.edu> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> <44C7750E.3000605@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <44C77A73.3070205@fedoraproject.org> Rex Dieter wrote: > Depends mostly on the packages getting reviewed and approved. (: > > kdeaccessibility: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194276 > kdeartwork-extras (including icons): http://bugzilla.redhat.com/196379 > kdebindings: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194280 > kdeedu: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194373 > kdegames [WWW] http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194374 > > I'll whip up a package review submission for kdeaddons asap. If we post the plan that we would want them to be reviewed by test2 release and make a request, I guess someone would be interested in doing the reviews. There seems to a good team here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/KDE The stagnation seems to be from lack of direction rather than interest. Rahul From notting at redhat.com Wed Jul 26 14:58:57 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:58:57 -0400 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060726145857.GC26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: > On Tuesday 25 July 2006 18:43, Rex Dieter wrote: > > kdeaccessibility (~9MB) > > Probably want left in until we have shippable Extras CDs. A lot of the folks > that need these languages don't have high bandwidth. > > > kdebindings (~9MB) > > kdeartwork-icons (~11MB) > > If this is extra icons, sure kick it. We have "extra" gnome icon sets in > Extras too. > > > kdeedu (~30MB) > > That is big. I could see it going. > > > kdegames (~11MB) > > Please... (: > > > kdeaddons (~3MB) (BR's kdegames-devel, xmms-devel) > > addons, sounds like Extras too me. > > > > > IMO, the best candidate is kdeartwork-icons, some optional/less-used > > icon themes. ?Next best would be kdeedu, since it's so big. (: > > > > I already have most of these already up for review (presumably for > > fc7/UnleashKDE purposes), so these could get moved to Extras relatively > > quickly. > > How quickly? By Test2 release? Well, you'd want it done by Test2 final-compose date. Outside of that, what *specifically* are we trying to accomplish? General shrinkage (in which case I can come up with a boatload more stuff). Specific removal of KDE (in which case, why not all of it?) I'm honestly curious. Bill From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Jul 26 14:59:44 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:59:44 -0500 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <44C77A73.3070205@fedoraproject.org> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> <44C7750E.3000605@math.unl.edu> <44C77A73.3070205@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <44C78360.4070205@math.unl.edu> Rahul wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Depends mostly on the packages getting reviewed and approved. (: >> >> kdeaccessibility: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194276 >> kdeartwork-extras (including icons): http://bugzilla.redhat.com/196379 >> kdebindings: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194280 >> kdeedu: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194373 >> kdegames [WWW] http://bugzilla.redhat.com/194374 >> >> I'll whip up a package review submission for kdeaddons asap. > > If we post the plan that we would want them to be reviewed by test2 > release and make a request, I guess someone would be interested in doing > the reviews. > > There seems to a good team here > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/KDE Should I wait for an official OK from the "Fedora Cabal" to move forward with this (or just get to work)? I'll assume the latter (getting to work), unless someone yells otherwise to rain on my parade. -- Rex From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Jul 26 15:07:06 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:07:06 -0500 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <20060726145857.GC26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060726145857.GC26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44C7851A.8060208@math.unl.edu> Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: >> On Tuesday 25 July 2006 18:43, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> I already have most of these already up for review (presumably for >>> fc7/UnleashKDE purposes), so these could get moved to Extras relatively >>> quickly. >> How quickly? By Test2 release? > > Well, you'd want it done by Test2 final-compose date. > > Outside of that, what *specifically* are we trying to accomplish? General > shrinkage (in which case I can come up with a boatload more stuff). Specific > removal of KDE (in which case, why not all of it?) General shrinkage? Yes, I thought that was the point of the topic being raised in the last board meeting. Specific removal of KDE? IMO, yes, as much as possible, but I think we can all agree any attempt to remove all of it this late in the fc6 cycle isn't reasonably possible. -- Rex From notting at redhat.com Wed Jul 26 15:12:08 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:12:08 -0400 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <44C7851A.8060208@math.unl.edu> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060726145857.GC26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <44C7851A.8060208@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20060726151208.GF26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Rex Dieter (rdieter at math.unl.edu) said: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > >Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: > >>On Tuesday 25 July 2006 18:43, Rex Dieter wrote: > > >>>I already have most of these already up for review (presumably for > >>>fc7/UnleashKDE purposes), so these could get moved to Extras relatively > >>>quickly. > >>How quickly? By Test2 release? > > > >Well, you'd want it done by Test2 final-compose date. > > > >Outside of that, what *specifically* are we trying to accomplish? General > >shrinkage (in which case I can come up with a boatload more stuff). > >Specific > >removal of KDE (in which case, why not all of it?) > > General shrinkage? Yes, I thought that was the point of the topic being > raised in the last board meeting. Yes, but if that's the goal, I'd prefer it to be looked at outside of just KDE (fer example, the gnucash stack could move to Extras if we wanted to, along with all the random stuff that's not in comps and not required by anything.) > Specific removal of KDE? IMO, yes, as much as possible, but I think we > can all agree any attempt to remove all of it this late in the fc6 cycle > isn't reasonably possible. The problem is, we're already essentially frozen for test2, and we've already rejected changes (outside of this) that would involve large package upheaval in Core. I'm concerned that it's too late for this now, and if we're moving as planned for FC7, it will all be solved then anyway. Bill From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Jul 26 15:26:07 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:26:07 -0500 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <20060726151208.GF26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060726145857.GC26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <44C7851A.8060208@math.unl.edu> <20060726151208.GF26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44C7898F.3000002@math.unl.edu> Bill Nottingham wrote: > Rex Dieter (rdieter at math.unl.edu) said: > The problem is, we're already essentially frozen for test2, and we've > already rejected changes (outside of this) that would involve large > package upheaval in Core. I'm concerned that it's too late for this > now, and if we're moving as planned for FC7, it will all be solved > then anyway. I take it then from your statement that this pretty much vetoes any further Core->Extras move in the fc6 timeframe? WORKSFORME either way. -- Rex From notting at redhat.com Wed Jul 26 15:54:42 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:54:42 -0400 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <44C7898F.3000002@math.unl.edu> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060726145857.GC26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <44C7851A.8060208@math.unl.edu> <20060726151208.GF26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <44C7898F.3000002@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20060726155442.GA1223@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Rex Dieter (rdieter at math.unl.edu) said: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > >Rex Dieter (rdieter at math.unl.edu) said: > > >The problem is, we're already essentially frozen for test2, and we've > >already rejected changes (outside of this) that would involve large > >package upheaval in Core. I'm concerned that it's too late for this > >now, and if we're moving as planned for FC7, it will all be solved > >then anyway. > > I take it then from your statement that this pretty much vetoes any > further Core->Extras move in the fc6 timeframe? > > WORKSFORME either way. It's not a 100% veto; I'm just not sure it's worth the pain right now. Bill From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 26 16:25:59 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:55:59 +0530 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <20060726145857.GC26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060726145857.GC26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44C79797.8090603@fedoraproject.org> Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: >> On Tuesday 25 July 2006 18:43, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> kdeaccessibility (~9MB) >> Probably want left in until we have shippable Extras CDs. A lot of the folks >> that need these languages don't have high bandwidth. >> >>> kdebindings (~9MB) >>> kdeartwork-icons (~11MB) >> If this is extra icons, sure kick it. We have "extra" gnome icon sets in >> Extras too. >> >>> kdeedu (~30MB) >> That is big. I could see it going. >> >>> kdegames (~11MB) >> Please... (: >> >>> kdeaddons (~3MB) (BR's kdegames-devel, xmms-devel) >> addons, sounds like Extras too me. >> >>> IMO, the best candidate is kdeartwork-icons, some optional/less-used >>> icon themes. Next best would be kdeedu, since it's so big. (: >>> >>> I already have most of these already up for review (presumably for >>> fc7/UnleashKDE purposes), so these could get moved to Extras relatively >>> quickly. >> How quickly? By Test2 release? > > Well, you'd want it done by Test2 final-compose date. > > Outside of that, what *specifically* are we trying to accomplish? General > shrinkage (in which case I can come up with a boatload more stuff). We should look at that boatload more stuff as soon we release FC6 then. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 26 16:34:51 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:04:51 +0530 Subject: [fab] trimming Core, some (more) kde bits In-Reply-To: <20060726155442.GA1223@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <44C69E85.5060504@math.unl.edu> <200607260935.26369.jkeating@redhat.com> <20060726145857.GC26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <44C7851A.8060208@math.unl.edu> <20060726151208.GF26071@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <44C7898F.3000002@math.unl.edu> <20060726155442.GA1223@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44C799AB.9060001@fedoraproject.org> Bill Nottingham wrote: > Rex Dieter (rdieter at math.unl.edu) said: >> Bill Nottingham wrote: >>> Rex Dieter (rdieter at math.unl.edu) said: >>> The problem is, we're already essentially frozen for test2, and we've >>> already rejected changes (outside of this) that would involve large >>> package upheaval in Core. I'm concerned that it's too late for this >>> now, and if we're moving as planned for FC7, it will all be solved >>> then anyway. >> I take it then from your statement that this pretty much vetoes any >> further Core->Extras move in the fc6 timeframe? >> >> WORKSFORME either way. > > It's not a 100% veto; I'm just not sure it's worth the pain right now. > Moving it incrementally would potentially make it less of a "news". That can be a advantage. Rahul From kwade at redhat.com Wed Jul 26 18:24:21 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:24:21 -0700 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1153938261.29375.231.camel@erato.phig.org> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 19:41 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group > >> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has > >> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are > >> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as > >> a requirement might be abused. > > > > How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? > > Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an > > objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. > > Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. One way to measure is to require activity as an elected member of a sub-project committee, such as FESCO or FDSCo. Perhaps each sub-project could have a way of qualifying. Number of packages owned or reviewed; documents written, edited, or translated; events attended as an Ambassador; etc. Or do we specifically want to allow for the possibility of a disruptive election that can bring in dilettantes who only know how to campaign for votes? - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 11:44:09 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:44:09 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1153938261.29375.231.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C21C2E.7050302@fedoraproject.org> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> <1153938261.29375.231.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1154000649.5455.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 11:24 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 19:41 +0530, Rahul wrote: > > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > >> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group > > >> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has > > >> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are > > >> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as > > >> a requirement might be abused. > > > > > > How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? > > > Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an > > > objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. > > > > Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. > > One way to measure is to require activity as an elected member of a > sub-project committee, such as FESCO or FDSCo. > > Perhaps each sub-project could have a way of qualifying. Number of > packages owned or reviewed; documents written, edited, or translated; > events attended as an Ambassador; etc. > > Or do we specifically want to allow for the possibility of a disruptive > election that can bring in dilettantes who only know how to campaign for > votes? While I totally appreciate the idea, I'm not sure it's a real scary concern. Just look at the FESCo election turnout, and the impact that FE has had on the project as a whole. I would think (and hope) the people who aren't involved aren't going to get any votes for steering committee membership, much less the board. The community's made up, by and large, of fairly intelligent individuals who aren't likely to be swayed by campaigners. (After all, what are they going to promise me that I can't provide for myself?) And how do we capture people who took the time to get an account, only occasionally post or Wiki, yet promote Fedora actively and quietly on their own? What about people who help on IRC #fedora exclusively? I think this would layer significant drag on the subprojects for very little return. Plus I would call voting rights the real test of a democracy's commitment to its populace. We don't want to base those rights on property ownership or "I have given more to the cause than you, comrade." That's what subproject leadership is for! (I mean that in a good way. There *is* a good way, right?) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Jul 27 12:00:11 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:30:11 +0530 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <200607221049.13558.nman64@n-man.com> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> <200607221049.13558.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <44C8AACB.3060304@fedoraproject.org> Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > On Saturday 22 July 2006 09:11, Rahul wrote: >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group >>>> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has >>>> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are >>>> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as >>>> a requirement might be abused. >>> How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? >>> Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an >>> objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. >> Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. >> > > There is no reliable way to say who is active and who is not. It is trivial > to gain membership in most of the groups in the Account System. Unless > someone can think of a superior way to measure active contributors, I think > the CLA requirement is the best we can do. I do continue to think we can do better. Here is a possible criteria set. We might have to fine tune it better. * Signed the CLA * CVS commits to any of the Fedora Projects * Triaged or reported X number of bugs in Fedora. * Participated or organized atleast one event or contributed to Free/Sponsored media as a Fedora Ambassador * Member of any of the governing bodies such as committees and board * Produced any Fedora specific content that is included in the distribution - Documentation, Artwork etc. * People who contribute to infrastructure and other management tasks. Anything that I have missed? Rahul From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 12:22:26 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:22:26 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <44C8AACB.3060304@fedoraproject.org> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> <200607221049.13558.nman64@n-man.com> <44C8AACB.3060304@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1154002946.5455.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 17:30 +0530, Rahul wrote: > Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > > On Saturday 22 July 2006 09:11, Rahul wrote: > >> Paul W. Frields wrote: > >>>> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group > >>>> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has > >>>> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are > >>>> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as > >>>> a requirement might be abused. > >>> How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? > >>> Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an > >>> objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. > >> Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. > >> > > > > There is no reliable way to say who is active and who is not. It is trivial > > to gain membership in most of the groups in the Account System. Unless > > someone can think of a superior way to measure active contributors, I think > > the CLA requirement is the best we can do. > > I do continue to think we can do better. Here is a possible criteria > set. We might have to fine tune it better. > > * Signed the CLA > * CVS commits to any of the Fedora Projects > * Triaged or reported X number of bugs in Fedora. > * Participated or organized atleast one event or contributed to > Free/Sponsored media as a Fedora Ambassador > * Member of any of the governing bodies such as committees and board > * Produced any Fedora specific content that is included in the > distribution - Documentation, Artwork etc. > * People who contribute to infrastructure and other management tasks. > > Anything that I have missed? CLA'ers that participate in ways we can't capture: IRC, FedoraForum, real-life boosterism... Also Wiki wasn't on this list. I assume people working on i18n.r.c were captured in your item #6. You can see how this makes it more difficult to draw a line. See my other comment in a related election thread this morning; our voting rights barrier should be as low as possible, else it sends a signal we have very little faith in the majority of our community. I trust people to do what's best for the project in the long run, since the community and the project are pretty much synonymous. It seems highly unlikely that there will be a coordinated mass insurrection by non-active people who've done a CLA. ;-) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Jul 27 12:36:58 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:06:58 +0530 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1154002946.5455.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1153570974.22412.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1153577153.22412.64.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C2320C.6070200@fedoraproject.org> <200607221049.13558.nman64@n-man.com> <44C8AACB.3060304@fedoraproject.org> <1154002946.5455.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <44C8B36A.9080700@fedoraproject.org> Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 17:30 +0530, Rahul wrote: >> Patrick W. Barnes wrote: >>> On Saturday 22 July 2006 09:11, Rahul wrote: >>>> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>>>> 4) CLA completion and being part of atleast one specific Fedora group >>>>>> like say Fedora Extras must be a requirement. Not everybody who has >>>>>> signed the CLA has provided any meaningful contributions and thus are >>>>>> not in the group of actual Fedora contributors. Having merely the CLA as >>>>>> a requirement might be abused. >>>>> How do we define being "part of" a group? Number of CVS commits? >>>>> Number of emails posted to a list? Time on IRC? If you can provide an >>>>> objective standard for this criterion, let's discuss it. >>>> Part of any Fedora group in the accounts system. >>>> >>> There is no reliable way to say who is active and who is not. It is trivial >>> to gain membership in most of the groups in the Account System. Unless >>> someone can think of a superior way to measure active contributors, I think >>> the CLA requirement is the best we can do. >> I do continue to think we can do better. Here is a possible criteria >> set. We might have to fine tune it better. >> >> * Signed the CLA >> * CVS commits to any of the Fedora Projects >> * Triaged or reported X number of bugs in Fedora. >> * Participated or organized atleast one event or contributed to >> Free/Sponsored media as a Fedora Ambassador >> * Member of any of the governing bodies such as committees and board >> * Produced any Fedora specific content that is included in the >> distribution - Documentation, Artwork etc. >> * People who contribute to infrastructure and other management tasks. >> >> Anything that I have missed? > > CLA'ers that participate in ways we can't capture: IRC, FedoraForum, > real-life boosterism... If we are going to include all these people, we might as well as skip the CLA requirement and let everyone vote. Also Wiki wasn't on this list. I consider it part of our content and infrastructure. I assume people > working on i18n.r.c were captured in your item #6. Yes and #2. You can see how this > makes it more difficult to draw a line. See my other comment in a > related election thread this morning; our voting rights barrier should > be as low as possible, else it sends a signal we have very little faith > in the majority of our community. Not really. What is the CLA process achieve us here if everyone call sign a CLA and getting voting rights? We just need to make sure that every contributor and not just the developers (aka Debian) gets voting rights and that shouldnt mean that everyone who posts in mailing lists and forums should be > > I trust people to do what's best for the project in the long run, since > the community and the project are pretty much synonymous. It seems > highly unlikely that there will be a coordinated mass insurrection by > non-active people who've done a CLA. ;-) No but it does have the potential to affect the nature of the election process quite drastically. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 31 09:13:18 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:43:18 +0530 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] Message-ID: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> Hi, I asked spot to help me with the license analysis to look at any potential non-free packages that we would have to lose by endorsing only Free software in our guidelines (as defined by FSF). Spot pointed out that FSF has described the original artistic license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense ) as ambiguous but David Turner from FSF didnt list any of the Perl packages as non-free. We require more clarification on this. On a earlier discussion, it was pointed out that by Jeremy Katz that our guidelines (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-adf31c383612aac313719f7b4f8167b7dcf245d2) allow inclusion on binary firmware when licensed in a appropriate manner. The advantage in including such firmware might be low since some major vendors do not allow redistributions without special agreements. So other than a few packages that Spot is looking into, this might be the only major issue we need to discuss further since disallowing a lot of firmware might limit our wireless networking capabilities. With laptop sales over taking desktops this is obviously a key issue we need to look into. Rahul -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Tom 'spot' Callaway" Subject: Free software and Fedora: Dissected Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:13:17 -0500 Size: 12349 URL: From ville.skytta at iki.fi Mon Jul 31 20:16:47 2006 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:16:47 +0300 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1154377007.2748.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> >From spot's list: > This license doesn't permit modified redistribution, so this is right > out. On top of that, Fedora _IS_ patching it, so we're in violation. > nothing requires aspell-nl explicitly, so moving this to FE makes sense. I'm wondering what would make this acceptable in FE. Other packages (eg. pine) having similar conditions have already been rejected. From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 31 20:22:04 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:22:04 -0500 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154377007.2748.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154377007.2748.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1154377324.3296.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 23:16 +0300, Ville Skytt? wrote: > >From spot's list: > > > This license doesn't permit modified redistribution, so this is right > > out. On top of that, Fedora _IS_ patching it, so we're in violation. > > nothing requires aspell-nl explicitly, so moving this to FE makes sense. > > I'm wondering what would make this acceptable in FE. Other packages > (eg. pine) having similar conditions have already been rejected. Yeah. I'll email the upstream author and see if I can convince them to drop the restriction. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Jul 31 23:12:17 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:12:17 -0500 Subject: [fab] [Fwd: Free software and Fedora: Dissected] In-Reply-To: <1154377324.3296.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44CDC9AE.6030206@fedoraproject.org> <1154377007.2748.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1154377324.3296.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1154387537.3296.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 15:22 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 23:16 +0300, Ville Skytt? wrote: > > >From spot's list: > > > > > This license doesn't permit modified redistribution, so this is right > > > out. On top of that, Fedora _IS_ patching it, so we're in violation. > > > nothing requires aspell-nl explicitly, so moving this to FE makes sense. > > > > I'm wondering what would make this acceptable in FE. Other packages > > (eg. pine) having similar conditions have already been rejected. > > Yeah. I'll email the upstream author and see if I can convince them to > drop the restriction. ... or not. Upstream seems to have dropped off the face of the earth. I hate to just drop support for this, given that it was in core, so I looked at what Debian was doing here. They have an entirely DIFFERENT set of aspell-nl files, these are GPL. I took those files and tried to make a new aspell-nl package: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/aspell-nl-0.1e-1.src.rpm http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/aspell-nl.spec I think I did it right, but I am not an aspell expert, nor do I speak or read Dutch, so it should DEFINITELY be checked before being committed, but if this works, this will get us past this item. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!