From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Jun 5 18:28:00 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:28:00 -0400 Subject: [fab] Integrate Legacy Message-ID: <1149532080.3171.20.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> I would really like to see some movement on integrating Legacy into the existing Fedora infrastructure. What does this involve? * Plague instance for Legacy. - Building of RHL7.3/9 packages(?), FC1->3 * CVS tree to use - copies of current FC (and RHL?) trees to commit changes to - Support in account system for ACLs * Publishing software - Currently we push to download.fedoralegacy.org in our own tree format. We should push to download.fedora.redhat.com and use the real mirror system - Sign+Push software and users. A few people know the Legacy key and could push. Some of these can be done in stages. Currently we don't use CVS to manage our changes (ick) but we could get a Plague instance up and running prior to having CVS, and that could be added later. Likewise we could continue to hand sign/push our packages to our current mirror structure before moving into download.fedora space. There are some questionmarks regarding RHL support. Personally I would really like to see Legacy's support of RHL die with FC6 Test2. Then we would only have to worry about building FC3+FC4 packages in the Legacy space. This would make it much easier for CVS, for the build system, for the publishing tool, etc... However there is bound to be resistance to dropping said support. However, we could also keep that separate. Continue to support RHL through our existing build system, while we move the FC support to the Fedora infrastructure. Lots of options there, and headaches there. Anyway, I'd like a clear Go Ahead from the Board to start talking to the folks necessary to make these things happen. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Mon Jun 5 20:01:16 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow Message-ID: Fedora Board meets tomorrow. As usual, I'm sending the agenda to this wider list, so that everyone can know what we're going to talk about ahead of time, and we'll report back after the meeting. * Infrastructure issues. Need to get an update from Elliot as to what his team is working on, what their priorities are, etc. - account system - access to infrastructure - CMS - other stuff Elliot thinks is important * Plone update * We've talked about finishing the f.r.c migration, now it's time to assign ownership and *make it happen*. - what are the blockers? * Extras sponsorship - Is this process smooth? I heard some grumblings at the Summit - What do we need to fix? * the next FUDCon * Brand/Logo/Trademark stuff * Fedora Legacy (see Jesse's email on f-a-b) I'm guessing we'll easily cover an hour on these topics. But we're not hanging up the phones until we've got ownership and action items on this stuff. I want to make sure we *make progress* rather than just *talk about* progress. :-) --Max -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Jun 5 20:35:51 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:35:51 -0500 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1149539751.8289.19.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 16:01 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > Fedora Board meets tomorrow. As usual, I'm sending the agenda to this > wider list, so that everyone can know what we're going to talk about ahead > of time, and we'll report back after the meeting. > > * Extras sponsorship > - Is this process smooth? I heard some grumblings at the Summit > - What do we need to fix? For those of use that weren't at the Summit, could you expand on what these grumblings were please? > I'm guessing we'll easily cover an hour on these topics. But we're not > hanging up the phones until we've got ownership and action items on this > stuff. I want to make sure we *make progress* rather than just *talk > about* progress. :-) That sounds dangerously productive ;) josh From nman64 at n-man.com Mon Jun 5 23:22:18 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:22:18 -0500 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control Message-ID: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> I'm a little concerned by a recent chain of events. Damien Durand recently decided that running interviews of Fedora contributors was a worthy project and began working, without support, to make it a reality. This, in itself, is good. We need people who take initiative. The problem is the subsequent announcement and adoption without review, and this is just a symptom of a larger, standing issue. As soon as Damien put up a page and interviewed Chitlesh Goorah, he sent an announcement to fedora-marketing-list and made a post in his blog. Then, Thomas included the announcement in the Fedora Weekly News report. The problem is that this program has had no peer review and doesn't have any support within the Fedora Project. I had instructed Damien to make a post to fedora-marketing-list to let the Marketing team know what he was working on and to ask for feedback, not to provide a formal announcement. My concern with this particular project is that it is doing something that is already being done and for which a new venue is not needed. RHM already has a column that features contributor interviews, and assorted other sources already allow contributors to be introduced to the community. Without the interest and resources going into Fedora Interview, I'm not sure it can really succeed. If the Marketing team adopted the idea and decided to support it, then we could have given more consideration into what we would throw behind the program. Another issue is the fact that Damien has not had the time to correct the issues that have already been pointed out. Moving to a public announcement was premature. This really only highlights and underlying problem. We have a number of new or inexperienced contributors who are in a hurry to start up their own initiatives. We already have a significant number of projects that need more attention, not separation. These new contributors take advantage of the freedom they are given to stake out grounds without peer support. This is fracturing our community and leaving all kinds of loose and dead ends. Another fine example of this issue is Clair Shaw's Word of Mouth program. Many of these initiatives are popping up under Ambassadors and Marketing, simply because the Ambassadors have an immediate sense of involvement and power, but this problem spreads well beyond those projects. We need to be flexible in allowing the formation of new programs, but allowing the creation and branding of new programs without any controls in place will soon dilute the standings of existing projects and will introduce confusion. With these small, unsupported programs popping up everywhere, projects are fracturing and initiatives are failing. We need to work on tightening controls and focusing the contributor energy where it is needed. It's time to consider establishing policies and practices for the formation of new projects and programs. This needs to happen at two levels. We need policies for the creation or promotion of projects at the top level, and individual projects need policies for the formation of sub-projects. If we don't exert control now, we'll have a hard time regaining it in the future. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/Interview http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/WordOfMouth -- 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 nman64 at n-man.com Mon Jun 5 23:42:29 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:42:29 -0500 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200606051842.31673.nman64@n-man.com> On Monday 05 June 2006 15:01, Max Spevack wrote: > Fedora Board meets tomorrow. As usual, I'm sending the agenda to this > wider list, so that everyone can know what we're going to talk about ahead > of time, and we'll report back after the meeting. Since I can't attend, I'll post my notes below. I'm sure they'll prove worthless in your talks. ;-) > > * Infrastructure issues. Need to get an update from Elliot as to what his > team is working on, what their priorities are, etc. > - account system I've been really pressed for time lately, but I'd still like to work on my planned revamp of the Account System to introduce some of the requested features, add a lot more checking to avoid tracebacks and other potential problems, and to make the whole system a lot easier to use and interface with. If someone else beats me to it, I won't be hurt. ;-) The Infrastructure team has also been looking at options to integrate the Account System with some other services for single sign-on. One very big question here: Do we need to continue requiring GPG-signed CLAs, or can we look at click-through options? > - access to infrastructure > - CMS For the time being, the CMS is off the plate for Infrastructure and awaiting work from the Websites team. > - other stuff Elliot thinks is important > > * Plone update http://fpserv.fedoraproject.org/ has been available for a while now, but very few people have done any work on it... > > * We've talked about finishing the f.r.c migration, now it's time to > assign ownership and *make it happen*. > - what are the blockers? > The biggest roadblock we face in making the f.r.c migration happen is the Plone site. We need that site themed suitably, and we need its content built. I've worked a little on this, but we don't even have any clear decisions about how, exactly, the site is supposed to interact with the wiki and what features we really want to use. We need some coordination between Fedora Documentation and Fedora Websites to figure out what goes where and to get the Plone content written. Once the Plone site is ready, we'll migrate the wiki to the new server, along with giving it an upgrade, and we'll wrap the Plone site around it. Depending upon the timetable, we might even be able to integrate some of the MoinMoin DocBook work that is being done as part of Google's Summer of Code. That would give the Docs team some more power and flexibility with the wiki. Once we have feedback from this meeting, I think Karsten and I need to meet up and talk about making things happen. > * Brand/Logo/Trademark stuff > I'd like to volunteer to help with this. Now that we have guidelines for how the logo should be included in other graphics, we need a clear policy about where and how it can be used. We're still getting a lot of questions, and it's starting to have PR implications. -- 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 Tue Jun 6 00:02:09 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:02:09 -0400 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <200606051842.31673.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051842.31673.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <1149552129.3899.7.camel@aglarond.local> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:42 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > On Monday 05 June 2006 15:01, Max Spevack wrote: > > Fedora Board meets tomorrow. As usual, I'm sending the agenda to this > > wider list, so that everyone can know what we're going to talk about ahead > > of time, and we'll report back after the meeting. > > Since I can't attend, I'll post my notes below. I'm sure they'll prove > worthless in your talks. ;-) You always have insightful comments! > > * Infrastructure issues. Need to get an update from Elliot as to what his > > team is working on, what their priorities are, etc. > > - account system > > I've been really pressed for time lately, but I'd still like to work on my > planned revamp of the Account System to introduce some of the requested > features, add a lot more checking to avoid tracebacks and other potential > problems, and to make the whole system a lot easier to use and interface > with. If someone else beats me to it, I won't be hurt. ;-) The > Infrastructure team has also been looking at options to integrate the Account > System with some other services for single sign-on. *nod* I think it makes some degree of sense. I was also talking with Mike McGrath (one of the infrastructure/sysadmin) guys while at the Summit about the account system. He was interested into looking at using LDAP and specifically, Fedora Directory Server to backend it and try to get us to where we could have a more consistent login infrastructure. So talk with him. > One very big question here: Do we need to continue requiring GPG-signed CLAs, > or can we look at click-through options? I have a feeling that we'll need to continue requiring GPG-signed CLAs, but we can run that up the legal flagpole to investigate. > > * We've talked about finishing the f.r.c migration, now it's time to > > assign ownership and *make it happen*. > > - what are the blockers? > > > > The biggest roadblock we face in making the f.r.c migration happen is the > Plone site. We need that site themed suitably, and we need its content > built. I've worked a little on this, but we don't even have any clear > decisions about how, exactly, the site is supposed to interact with the wiki > and what features we really want to use. We need some coordination between > Fedora Documentation and Fedora Websites to figure out what goes where and to > get the Plone content written. Once the Plone site is ready, we'll migrate > the wiki to the new server, along with giving it an upgrade, and we'll wrap > the Plone site around it. Depending upon the timetable, we might even be > able to integrate some of the MoinMoin DocBook work that is being done as > part of Google's Summer of Code. That would give the Docs team some more > power and flexibility with the wiki. I think this is a lot of the crux of the discussion points around all of plone/f.r.c. And I think part of this needs someone to step up and take charge of the situation, including arm-twisting as necessary... > Once we have feedback from this meeting, I think Karsten and I need to meet up > and talk about making things happen. Volunteering to run with this? :) Jeremy From katzj at redhat.com Tue Jun 6 00:09:22 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:09:22 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:22 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > I'm a little concerned by a recent chain of events. Damien Durand recently > decided that running interviews of Fedora contributors was a worthy project > and began working, without support, to make it a reality. This, in itself, > is good. We need people who take initiative. The problem is the subsequent > announcement and adoption without review, and this is just a symptom of a > larger, standing issue. FWIW, I'm somewhat concerned about this as well. There's a fine line to be walked between contributor empowerment and ensuring that new initiatives are started with appropriate review/support. [snip the details as they're illustrative rather than the crux here] > This really only highlights and underlying problem. We have a number of new > or inexperienced contributors who are in a hurry to start up their own > initiatives. We already have a significant number of projects that need more > attention, not separation. These new contributors take advantage of the > freedom they are given to stake out grounds without peer support. This is > fracturing our community and leaving all kinds of loose and dead ends. So the question becomes how do we help to get new contributors working within established frameworks and not feeling that they have to go off and start something on their own? Because while the suggestions for additional control are sensible and reasonable (IMHO), it will still occur as long as we don't have good avenues for people to get started. Perhaps one route would be to have a defined, easy, low-barrier way for people to start something on their own and have it clearly be incubatory or a pilot to gauge interest until officially adopted either as a top-level project or as a subproject? Also, note that with the announcement of the "Red Hat Open Testing Project to get a name in the future" that there's some desire to see under the Fedora umbrella, there is some thought going into what's going to be needed for a "new project". I expect that to not be a short process to figure out or get through, though. Jeremy From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 6 00:24:13 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:24:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Jeremy Katz wrote: > Also, note that with the announcement of the "Red Hat Open Testing > Project to get a name in the future" that there's some desire to see > under the Fedora umbrella, there is some thought going into what's going > to be needed for a "new project". I expect that to not be a short > process to figure out or get through, though. This came up at the Fedora BoF. What we need to do, quite simply, is clarify (and then adhere to) two sets of guidelines: 1. Official Fedora Projects behave as such..... - clear leadership - email list, irc, cvs (if needed) - home on the wiki - scheduled meetings, public minutes/summaries - public roadmap - accountable to Fedora Board for leadership and progress - etc. 2. Fedora Incubator Projects behave as such..... - email list - wiki page - seeing critical mass of participation and progress - guidance from the rest of Fedora - etc. These guidelines have come together organically -- most of us can probably enumerate many of the requirements of each, as I have tried to do above. Someone (it could be me, but I'd like to see someone else who has more cycles and time to devote directly to it) needs to write a draft, and then we can review it on this list and publicize it. Any volunteers? No reason we can't get this done by the end of the week, if someone can step up and own it. w.r.t the interviews -- I say let him run them, and it's on *us* to figure out what part of the Fedora umbrella those should be under. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 6 00:27:48 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:27:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <1149539751.8289.19.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1149539751.8289.19.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 16:01 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: >> Fedora Board meets tomorrow. As usual, I'm sending the agenda to this >> wider list, so that everyone can know what we're going to talk about ahead >> of time, and we'll report back after the meeting. > >> >> * Extras sponsorship >> - Is this process smooth? I heard some grumblings at the Summit >> - What do we need to fix? > > For those of use that weren't at the Summit, could you expand on what > these grumblings were please? Just that people can't get their packages sponsored, and things sit for a long time without any sort of review (either acceptance or rejection). To some extent I agree with the logic of "the best packages will always find sponsors and bubble up", but I question whether or not that process is happening as quickly as it could, and if we're failing to capitalize on the skills/motivation of people who are good, only because we don't *realize* that they are good in a reasonable amount of time. FESCO folks on this list: are there issues here? what, if anything needs to be done? >> I'm guessing we'll easily cover an hour on these topics. But we're not >> hanging up the phones until we've got ownership and action items on >> this stuff. I want to make sure we *make progress* rather than just >> *talk about* progress. :-) > > That sounds dangerously productive ;) It's a risk I'm willing to take! -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 6 00:32:41 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <200606051842.31673.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051842.31673.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: >> * Plone update > > http://fpserv.fedoraproject.org/ has been available for a while now, but very > few people have done any work on it... > >> >> * We've talked about finishing the f.r.c migration, now it's time to >> assign ownership and *make it happen*. >> - what are the blockers? >> > > The biggest roadblock we face in making the f.r.c migration happen is the > Plone site. and here is the crux of the problem. The plone instance is up and running, but as you say, few people have participated, and the lack of participation and clarity between plone and the wiki is blocking the f.r.c migration. If there is technical expertise w.r.t Plone that is lacking, then that's one issue to be solved. If it's simply a matter of websites/docs folks getting around to moving content around and figuring out the details of that amongst themselves, that is an entirely separate issue, and easily solved simply by introducing some deadlines. The Board touched on this briefly at the end of our last meeting, but we were out of time to discuss it. I wonder if Elliot should lead this effort, roping in and delegating to the Docs/Websites people who are needed. Elliot, you got any thoughts? > I'd like to volunteer to help with this. Now that we have guidelines for how > the logo should be included in other graphics, we need a clear policy about > where and how it can be used. We're still getting a lot of questions, and > it's starting to have PR implications. Excellent. Let's chat offline about about the todos, and then get them done. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From nman64 at n-man.com Tue Jun 6 00:34:31 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 19:34:31 -0500 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <1149552129.3899.7.camel@aglarond.local> References: <200606051842.31673.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552129.3899.7.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <200606051934.33432.nman64@n-man.com> On Monday 05 June 2006 19:02, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > I've been really pressed for time lately, but I'd still like to work on > > my planned revamp of the Account System to introduce some of the > > requested features, add a lot more checking to avoid tracebacks and other > > potential problems, and to make the whole system a lot easier to use and > > interface with. If someone else beats me to it, I won't be hurt. ;-) > > The Infrastructure team has also been looking at options to integrate the > > Account System with some other services for single sign-on. > > *nod* I think it makes some degree of sense. I was also talking with > Mike McGrath (one of the infrastructure/sysadmin) guys while at the > Summit about the account system. He was interested into looking at > using LDAP and specifically, Fedora Directory Server to backend it and > try to get us to where we could have a more consistent login > infrastructure. So talk with him. Yep. Honestly, I don't really care if the backend is LDAP or PostgreSQL, as long as it stores the information in an accessible way. The current system is a homebrew solution, which might cause some problems in integrating other services, but being SQL means there shouldn't be too much work involved. Mike's ideas are great, and he's shown a ton of initiative. If he can come up with a solid backend, I'd be happy to work with in the production of the front-end, but this is a discussion for another list... :-) > > > One very big question here: Do we need to continue requiring GPG-signed > > CLAs, or can we look at click-through options? > > I have a feeling that we'll need to continue requiring GPG-signed CLAs, > but we can run that up the legal flagpole to investigate. That was my original thinking, too, but I've become more convinced that click-through forms are acceptable, so I'd really like to hear a Legal opinion on this. The other aspect of this question lies in how low we want the barrier for new contributors. The CLA has been an automatic test of technical capacity for new contributors. In some cases, we might want that sort of stumbling block to give our new contributors a chance to prove themselves in some small way. I don't think that this is really a good reason to keep requiring GPG signatures, but it's something to think about. > > > > * We've talked about finishing the f.r.c migration, now it's time to > > > assign ownership and *make it happen*. > > > - what are the blockers? > > > > The biggest roadblock we face in making the f.r.c migration happen is the > > Plone site. We need that site themed suitably, and we need its content > > built. I've worked a little on this, but we don't even have any clear > > decisions about how, exactly, the site is supposed to interact with the > > wiki and what features we really want to use. We need some coordination > > between Fedora Documentation and Fedora Websites to figure out what goes > > where and to get the Plone content written. Once the Plone site is > > ready, we'll migrate the wiki to the new server, along with giving it an > > upgrade, and we'll wrap the Plone site around it. Depending upon the > > timetable, we might even be able to integrate some of the MoinMoin > > DocBook work that is being done as part of Google's Summer of Code. That > > would give the Docs team some more power and flexibility with the wiki. > > I think this is a lot of the crux of the discussion points around all of > plone/f.r.c. And I think part of this needs someone to step up and take > charge of the situation, including arm-twisting as necessary... > > > Once we have feedback from this meeting, I think Karsten and I need to > > meet up and talk about making things happen. > > Volunteering to run with this? :) > I'm willing to take it as far as I can. If I can get the help of the Docs team, and later the Infrastructure team, we should be able to knock out the barriers and make some real progress. At this point, we just need to make a few strategic decisions, and I think Karsten and I can figure out the big questions that stand in the way. We've knocked around a few ideas in the past about how to handle this, but we didn't yet have anything to experiment with at that time. Now, we can work out real solutions and put the ideas to practical use. -- 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 nman64 at n-man.com Tue Jun 6 01:59:40 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:59:40 -0500 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: <200606051842.31673.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <200606052059.46136.nman64@n-man.com> On Monday 05 June 2006 19:32, Max Spevack wrote: > > If there is technical expertise w.r.t Plone that is lacking, then that's > one issue to be solved. We've got people in and near the project that know Plone with varying degrees of expertise. The basic functions are easy, and there's plenty of information for more complex functions. I think, overall, we've got the necessary skills. > > If it's simply a matter of websites/docs folks getting around to moving > content around and figuring out the details of that amongst themselves, > that is an entirely separate issue, and easily solved simply by > introducing some deadlines. This is where the issue is. We need some decisions made about how it's going to work, and then we can start setting deadlines to get the grunt work done. -- 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 jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Jun 6 02:16:29 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:16:29 -0500 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: <1149539751.8289.19.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1149560189.18453.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 20:27 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> * Extras sponsorship > >> - Is this process smooth? I heard some grumblings at the Summit > >> - What do we need to fix? > > > > For those of use that weren't at the Summit, could you expand on what > > these grumblings were please? > > Just that people can't get their packages sponsored, and things sit for a > long time without any sort of review (either acceptance or rejection). Ok. I've heard those grumblings. > > To some extent I agree with the logic of "the best packages will always > find sponsors and bubble up", but I question whether or not that process > is happening as quickly as it could, and if we're failing to capitalize on > the skills/motivation of people who are good, only because we don't > *realize* that they are good in a reasonable amount of time. Yes, sure. > > FESCO folks on this list: are there issues here? what, if anything needs > to be done? There are various ideas kicking around within FESCO. Review days, writing a tool to check for most of the "Must"s in the review list, etc. Not that anyone would mind fresh ideas/insight on the problem, but what is the board going to do here that FESCO can't? In other words... is the board meeting the right place to be having this discussion? josh From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Jun 6 04:55:42 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:55:42 +0200 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <1149560189.18453.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1149539751.8289.19.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1149560189.18453.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1149569743.4681.16.camel@thl.ct.heise.de> Am Montag, den 05.06.2006, 21:16 -0500 schrieb Josh Boyer: > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 20:27 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Josh Boyer wrote: > > >> * Extras sponsorship > > >> - Is this process smooth? I heard some grumblings at the Summit > > >> - What do we need to fix? > > > For those of use that weren't at the Summit, could you expand on what > > > these grumblings were please? > > Just that people can't get their packages sponsored, and things sit for a > > long time without any sort of review (either acceptance or rejection). > Ok. I've heard those grumblings. Well, reviewers are limited and sponsors, too. [...] > > FESCO folks on this list: are there issues here? what, if anything needs > > to be done? > There are various ideas kicking around within FESCO. Review days, > writing a tool to check for most of the "Must"s in the review list, etc. Yes, these are ideas. "More sponsors" is also an idea, but we can't make everyone a sponsor. "Better Documentation and Education" is also on the list -- warren and tibbs are working on that currently. > Not that anyone would mind fresh ideas/insight on the problem, but what > is the board going to do here that FESCO can't? In other words... is > the board meeting the right place to be having this discussion? There is one thing I have in mind where the Board maybe can help a bit because it probably needs a lot of help from the infrastructure side. I got the impression that at least some Sponsors fear to sponsor people because those can do a lot of damage and it is hard to watch and control there doings. That's why I'd like to propose roughly something like this (not completely worked out yet, just ideas ATM): - Enable ACLs in CVS so that new contributors only have access to their package(s) - Create a new group in the accounts-system named "cvsextras-limited" (or something like that). Members of that group only have access to some packages in CVS but no permissions to requests builds in the build system. This would allow new contributors to start with co-maintaining existing packages. The real maintainer still can check the contributions easily and only has to request the build when everything is fine. The real maintainer gets rid of some of his maintainer-work this way and might have time to invest this in reviewing and sponsoring. And if the new co-maintainer did its job fine for some months he's sponsored to be a full contributor. (Note: without ACLs in the Buildsystem this is IMHO to risky, especially due to the CTRL-C problem where people might suppress the changelog-mails to commits-list) - Send direct mails to the Sponsors and the main-package Maintainer when a new contributor did something (uploaded a new revision to cvs, request a build). Yes, we have extras-commits-list, but stuff gets lost in the noise there easily -- sending direct mails to those that are responsible for the new contributor and the package is IMHO a lot better. CU thl From bugs.michael at gmx.net Tue Jun 6 11:20:25 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13:20:25 +0200 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: <1149539751.8289.19.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20060606132025.4b95efa3.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:27:48 -0400 (EDT), Max Spevack wrote: > >> * Extras sponsorship > >> - Is this process smooth? I heard some grumblings at the Summit > >> - What do we need to fix? > > > > For those of use that weren't at the Summit, could you expand on what > > these grumblings were please? > > Just that people can't get their packages sponsored, and things sit for a > long time without any sort of review (either acceptance or rejection). That's only one chapter of the book. Further chapters are about - reviewers, who wait a long time for submitters to report back, - packages, which are not ready or which improve only slowly and which need a lot of work before a sponsor would feel good about approving them, - fire'n'forget packages, which are pushed into Extras rather quickly, but end up as orphans even more quickly, because the packager abandons them without notice, - sponsors, who need some time to get to know unsponsorted contributors before they would be willing to sponsor them, - the post-approval phase, where prematurely sponsored contributors need much more guidance/help/education/monitoring than expected, - blanket approvals, rushed reviews. Grumblings, grumblings, ... it ought to be FESCO who is contacted first about this and about specific package review requests--where are the examples? Not this general backdoor lobbyism again, please. Really! It's not just that the review process is the one big hurdle to take. It's the varying commitment and cooperation of contributors, some of which take part in the review process only reluctantly because they disagree with many of the packaging guidelines and policies. We have quite some experience with new contributors who spend less energy on bringing in shape their packages than on criticising the process and policies. > To some extent I agree with the logic of "the best packages will always > find sponsors and bubble up", but I question whether or not that process > is happening as quickly as it could, and if we're failing to capitalize on > the skills/motivation of people who are good, only because we don't > *realize* that they are good in a reasonable amount of time. > > FESCO folks on this list: are there issues here? what, if anything needs > to be done? I'd rather like to see some higher-level decision about "libtool archives, yes or no?". That is something, which affects Core and Extras and cannot be solved by FESCO alone. From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Jun 6 11:32:04 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:32:04 -0500 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <20060606132025.4b95efa3.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <1149539751.8289.19.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <20060606132025.4b95efa3.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <448567B4.90500@math.unl.edu> Michael Schwendt wrote: > I'd rather like to see some higher-level decision about "libtool archives, > yes or no?". That is something, which affects Core and Extras and cannot > be solved by FESCO alone. I'll be supportive of a policy regarding libtool archives. (In general, just say no). (: -- Rex From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Jun 6 11:52:47 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:52:47 +0200 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <20060606132025.4b95efa3.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <1149539751.8289.19.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <20060606132025.4b95efa3.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <1149594767.4681.95.camel@thl.ct.heise.de> Am Dienstag, den 06.06.2006, 13:20 +0200 schrieb Michael Schwendt: > > FESCO folks on this list: are there issues here? what, if anything needs > > to be done? > > I'd rather like to see some higher-level decision about "libtool archives, > yes or no?". That is something, which affects Core and Extras and cannot > be solved by FESCO alone. That IMHO should be solved by Spot's new "Packaging Standards Committee" (or what was its name?) for which he got nominated (and accepted afaics) on this list. CU thl From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 6 13:51:27 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 09:51:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <1149560189.18453.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1149539751.8289.19.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1149560189.18453.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Josh Boyer wrote: > Not that anyone would mind fresh ideas/insight on the problem, but what > is the board going to do here that FESCO can't? In other words... is > the board meeting the right place to be having this discussion? Sure, in the sense that it's brought up on this list (like it was here in the agenda) and then the Board can make sure that the appropriate people are taking care of it. In this case, it's in the hands of FESCO (though thl did make some suggestions of how the board can help) -- but I want to make sure that one Board member "owns" driving it to completion -- in some cases that means simply making sure that the right people at the project-level are dealing with the issue, and holding those people accountable. In other cases, it means doing it ourselves. In the case of this particular question (Extras Sponsorship), this is one of those times where the Board needs to make sure FESCO comes up with a solution in a timely manner. My $.02 -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jun 6 15:54:51 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:54:51 -0700 Subject: [fab] agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <200606051842.31673.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051842.31673.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <1149609291.25323.395.camel@erato.phig.org> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 18:42 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > http://fpserv.fedoraproject.org/ has been available for a while now, but very > few people have done any work on it... I'm clearing the FDSCo agenda for today so we can talk about moving this forward. Right now, it is too hard to find our good documentation. I'd like us to define a good, canonical URI[0] and make that point directly at a nice organization of current and draft/beta documents. - Karsten [0] docs.fedoraproject.org help.fedoraproject.org others? -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ //////////////////////////////////// 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 Tue Jun 6 21:57:10 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Jeremy Katz wrote: > So the question becomes how do we help to get new contributors working > within established frameworks and not feeling that they have to go off > and start something on their own? Because while the suggestions for > additional control are sensible and reasonable (IMHO), it will still > occur as long as we don't have good avenues for people to get started. > Perhaps one route would be to have a defined, easy, low-barrier way for > people to start something on their own and have it clearly be incubatory > or a pilot to gauge interest until officially adopted either as a > top-level project or as a subproject? Yep. > Also, note that with the announcement of the "Red Hat Open Testing > Project to get a name in the future" that there's some desire to see > under the Fedora umbrella, there is some thought going into what's going > to be needed for a "new project". I expect that to not be a short > process to figure out or get through, though. >From my viewpoint in Simple-Land, the solution is very Simple: There are two classes of "project" in Fedora. Incubator project: any project that has a mailing list, a home on the wiki, and an IRC channel. Can be created by anybody following simple rules with an hour of work. If one person is willing to follow his or her own Fedora project, well by gum, it's an incubator project. We can institute basic rules to keep them sane: + No wiki posts or mailing list posts within six months: gone. + Majority vote of the board: gone. Official project: any project that has all of these things, plus: + a clearly articulated goal. + a steering committee with a chair. + regular meetings of the steering committee to ensure that progress is being made towards the goal. Life in Simple-Land is great. We eat cheap Chinese food from the same restaurant every day, and we only wear jeans and t-shirts that we get from trade shows. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jun 6 22:25:21 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:25:21 -0700 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <1149632721.25323.454.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 17:57 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > .. we only wear jeans and t-shirts that we get from > trade shows. It was *you* who stole my jeans! -- 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 Tue Jun 6 23:36:46 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:36:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Integrate Legacy In-Reply-To: <1149532080.3171.20.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> References: <1149532080.3171.20.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: Short answer: go for it. Long answer: see Board meeting minutes from today. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2006-06-06 --Max On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > I would really like to see some movement on integrating Legacy into the > existing Fedora infrastructure. What does this involve? > > * Plague instance for Legacy. > - Building of RHL7.3/9 packages(?), FC1->3 > > * CVS tree to use > - copies of current FC (and RHL?) trees to commit changes to > - Support in account system for ACLs > > * Publishing software > - Currently we push to download.fedoralegacy.org in our own tree > format. We should push to download.fedora.redhat.com and use the real > mirror system > - Sign+Push software and users. A few people know the Legacy key and > could push. > > Some of these can be done in stages. Currently we don't use CVS to > manage our changes (ick) but we could get a Plague instance up and > running prior to having CVS, and that could be added later. Likewise we > could continue to hand sign/push our packages to our current mirror > structure before moving into download.fedora space. > > There are some questionmarks regarding RHL support. Personally I would > really like to see Legacy's support of RHL die with FC6 Test2. Then we > would only have to worry about building FC3+FC4 packages in the Legacy > space. This would make it much easier for CVS, for the build system, > for the publishing tool, etc... However there is bound to be resistance > to dropping said support. However, we could also keep that separate. > Continue to support RHL through our existing build system, while we move > the FC support to the Fedora infrastructure. Lots of options there, and > headaches there. > > Anyway, I'd like a clear Go Ahead from the Board to start talking to the > folks necessary to make these things happen. > -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 6 23:41:05 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 19:41:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] Fedora Project Board meeting summary (june 6) Message-ID: As said on f-announce-l, the summary from today's FPB meeting is available on the wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2006-06-06 Thanks, Max -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From lxmaier at gmail.com Tue Jun 6 19:14:14 2006 From: lxmaier at gmail.com (Alex Maier) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:14:14 -0400 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <7f617d270606061214s358c90beu207f10cc749bd5f2@mail.gmail.com> I have to agree with most of this message--we do need some sort of peer review and minimal number of supporters to give the project an official blessing and to let them use the words "Fedora" and/or "Ambassadors" in the project name. Patrick, want to take a stab at a short and snappy set of rules? Famsco can then vote. thanks, a On 6/5/06, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > I'm a little concerned by a recent chain of events. Damien Durand recently > decided that running interviews of Fedora contributors was a worthy project > and began working, without support, to make it a reality. This, in itself, > is good. We need people who take initiative. The problem is the subsequent > announcement and adoption without review, and this is just a symptom of a > larger, standing issue. > > As soon as Damien put up a page and interviewed Chitlesh Goorah, he sent an > announcement to fedora-marketing-list and made a post in his blog. Then, > Thomas included the announcement in the Fedora Weekly News report. The > problem is that this program has had no peer review and doesn't have any > support within the Fedora Project. I had instructed Damien to make a post to > fedora-marketing-list to let the Marketing team know what he was working on > and to ask for feedback, not to provide a formal announcement. > > My concern with this particular project is that it is doing something that is > already being done and for which a new venue is not needed. RHM already has > a column that features contributor interviews, and assorted other sources > already allow contributors to be introduced to the community. Without the > interest and resources going into Fedora Interview, I'm not sure it can > really succeed. If the Marketing team adopted the idea and decided to > support it, then we could have given more consideration into what we would > throw behind the program. Another issue is the fact that Damien has not had > the time to correct the issues that have already been pointed out. Moving to > a public announcement was premature. > > This really only highlights and underlying problem. We have a number of new > or inexperienced contributors who are in a hurry to start up their own > initiatives. We already have a significant number of projects that need more > attention, not separation. These new contributors take advantage of the > freedom they are given to stake out grounds without peer support. This is > fracturing our community and leaving all kinds of loose and dead ends. > > Another fine example of this issue is Clair Shaw's Word of Mouth program. > Many of these initiatives are popping up under Ambassadors and Marketing, > simply because the Ambassadors have an immediate sense of involvement and > power, but this problem spreads well beyond those projects. We need to be > flexible in allowing the formation of new programs, but allowing the creation > and branding of new programs without any controls in place will soon dilute > the standings of existing projects and will introduce confusion. > > With these small, unsupported programs popping up everywhere, projects are > fracturing and initiatives are failing. We need to work on tightening > controls and focusing the contributor energy where it is needed. It's time > to consider establishing policies and practices for the formation of new > projects and programs. This needs to happen at two levels. We need policies > for the creation or promotion of projects at the top level, and individual > projects need policies for the formation of sub-projects. If we don't exert > control now, we'll have a hard time regaining it in the future. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/Interview > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/WordOfMouth > > -- > 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/ > -- > > > > -- > Famsco-list mailing list > Famsco-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/famsco-list > > > > -- Check out the new content on Fedora Project page! http://fedoraproject.org From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Jun 7 04:18:08 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:18:08 -0400 Subject: [fab] Integrate Legacy In-Reply-To: References: <1149532080.3171.20.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1149653888.31158.2.camel@ender> On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 19:36 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > Short answer: go for it. > > Long answer: see Board meeting minutes from today. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2006-06-06 Awesome. I'll make some announcements to my users and get some initial tasks started. Thanks! -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 chitlesh at fedoraproject.org Wed Jun 7 04:51:02 2006 From: chitlesh at fedoraproject.org (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 06:51:02 +0200 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <7f617d270606061214s358c90beu207f10cc749bd5f2@mail.gmail.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <7f617d270606061214s358c90beu207f10cc749bd5f2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <13dbfe4f0606062151k66772e32oa5b9a991fb18e429@mail.gmail.com> On 6/6/06, Alex Maier wrote: > official blessing and to let them use the words "Fedora" and/or > "Ambassadors" in the project name. Hello, I don't agree with this because this will break fedora contributors motivation for the project. Not to let a Fedora Contributor use the word "Fedora" and "Ambassadors" where one thinks its appropriate for the best of the project would be a bit too hard, don't you think?. We have to make the difference between a SIG and a project. I think in this case a SIG would be appropriate. The another thing is that here DamienDurand is not alone with his Interview Idea. He has followed a "certain procedure". He pinged me a month ago about his idea and we have been working on this along with ThomasCanniot as well. In that procedure, we call for "peer review" to Patrick on irc before the announcement on the ML. DamienDurand proposed interview to BobJensen and MaxSpevack and they both agreed to answer our questions. I think that this project has a momentum to start became a big one. > Patrick, want to take a stab at a short and snappy set of rules? > Famsco can then vote. I consider Peer review needs to be a must and as well we have to make the difference between a SIG and an official project. Chitlesh Goorah -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com From nman64 at n-man.com Wed Jun 7 04:52:06 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 23:52:06 -0500 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <200606062352.08960.nman64@n-man.com> On Monday 05 June 2006 19:24, Max Spevack wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > Also, note that with the announcement of the "Red Hat Open Testing > > Project to get a name in the future" that there's some desire to see > > under the Fedora umbrella, there is some thought going into what's going > > to be needed for a "new project". I expect that to not be a short > > process to figure out or get through, though. > > This came up at the Fedora BoF. What we need to do, quite simply, is > clarify (and then adhere to) two sets of guidelines: > > 1. Official Fedora Projects behave as such..... > - clear leadership > - email list, irc, cvs (if needed) > - home on the wiki > - scheduled meetings, public minutes/summaries > - public roadmap > - accountable to Fedora Board for leadership and progress > - etc. > > 2. Fedora Incubator Projects behave as such..... > - email list > - wiki page > - seeing critical mass of participation and progress > - guidance from the rest of Fedora > - etc. > > These guidelines have come together organically -- most of us can probably > enumerate many of the requirements of each, as I have tried to do above. > > Someone (it could be me, but I'd like to see someone else who has more > cycles and time to devote directly to it) needs to write a draft, and then > we can review it on this list and publicize it. > > Any volunteers? No reason we can't get this done by the end of the week, > if someone can step up and own it. > > w.r.t the interviews -- I say let him run them, and it's on *us* to figure > out what part of the Fedora umbrella those should be under. > I've started a new wiki page for this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects ...and the flood gates have been opened. ;-) -- 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 nman64 at n-man.com Wed Jun 7 06:48:39 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 01:48:39 -0500 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <13dbfe4f0606062151k66772e32oa5b9a991fb18e429@mail.gmail.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <7f617d270606061214s358c90beu207f10cc749bd5f2@mail.gmail.com> <13dbfe4f0606062151k66772e32oa5b9a991fb18e429@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200606070148.42604.nman64@n-man.com> On Tuesday 06 June 2006 23:51, "Chitlesh GOORAH" wrote: > On 6/6/06, Alex Maier wrote: > > official blessing and to let them use the words "Fedora" and/or > > "Ambassadors" in the project name. > > I don't agree with this because this will break fedora contributors > motivation for the project. Not to let a Fedora Contributor use the > word "Fedora" and "Ambassadors" where one thinks its appropriate for > the best of the project would be a bit too hard, don't you think?. > This problem goes right along with trademark dilution concerns. Allowing new contributors (or even experienced ones) to mark something in the official capacity of the Fedora name without first putting the idea forward for review and approval by peers will result in dangerous dilution, even if it is done with the best of intentions. The entire reason for requiring peer review is that a contributor can easily be swept away by their grand ideas and can lose the perspective to make a good judgment call. We're not saying that new projects cannot earn the Fedora name, we're saying that we want an approval process before a new idea can reach that level. > We have to make the difference between a SIG and a project. I think in > this case a SIG would be appropriate. > SIGs are another thing entirely, and are really outside of the scope of this discussion. Anyone is welcome to start up a special interest group for any particular topic within Fedora. There isn't much concern over the official nature of such a group or of name dilution. If anyone disagrees, I'd love to hear their views. > The another thing is that here DamienDurand is not alone with his > Interview Idea. He has followed a "certain procedure". He pinged me a > month ago about his idea and we have been working on this along with > ThomasCanniot as well. In that procedure, we call for "peer review" to > Patrick on irc before the announcement on the ML. > Correct, and my instructions to Damien included gather more peer review on the mailing list, not pushing forward a complete public announcement. This isn't just Damien's fault, though. The purpose of the message wasn't entirely clear, and it was taken out of context to represent an official announcement. That's a subject for a different discussion. Although I have my reservations about the idea, it does seem very intriguing, and I wanted the rest of the Marketing team to have a look and provide feedback. When it comes to programs like this, we need to get feedback from a broader set of contributors than just the Fedora France team, and I think the Marketing team was a good choice to present this idea to. This would have allowed us to improve upon the idea and the materials before introducing it to the general public. > DamienDurand proposed interview to BobJensen and MaxSpevack and they > both agreed to answer our questions. I think that this project has a > momentum to start became a big one. > That's definitely great progress. I didn't use the Interview idea in my example because of any fault in the idea, but rather that it illustrated my point brilliantly. The only thing that went wrong is that the project didn't get enough review before being presented to the general public. > > Patrick, want to take a stab at a short and snappy set of rules? > > Famsco can then vote. > > I consider Peer review needs to be a must and as well we have to make > the difference between a SIG and an official project. > Have a look at the new page I've created and bring your feedback up for discussion. 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 mspevack at redhat.com Wed Jun 7 15:37:43 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 11:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <200606062352.08960.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <200606062352.08960.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > I've started a new wiki page for this: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects > > ...and the flood gates have been opened. ;-) Great start -- I'll look at it more closely later on today. Thanks a lot Patrick. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From chitlesh at fedoraproject.org Wed Jun 7 16:46:52 2006 From: chitlesh at fedoraproject.org (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:46:52 +0200 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <200606070148.42604.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <7f617d270606061214s358c90beu207f10cc749bd5f2@mail.gmail.com> <13dbfe4f0606062151k66772e32oa5b9a991fb18e429@mail.gmail.com> <200606070148.42604.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <13dbfe4f0606070946o25a59022u3c7d3bec1a6fc7d1@mail.gmail.com> On 6/7/06, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > That's definitely great progress. I didn't use the Interview idea in my > example because of any fault in the idea, but rather that it illustrated my > point brilliantly. The only thing that went wrong is that the project didn't > get enough review before being presented to the general public. >From my point of view, Fedora Interview would be best in Fedoranews.org rather than in f-p.org, don't you think ? -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com From hugo at devin.com.br Wed Jun 7 15:37:42 2006 From: hugo at devin.com.br (Hugo Cisneiros) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:37:42 -0300 Subject: [fab] Re: Fedora Project Board Update (2006-06-06) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200606071237.42952.hugo@devin.com.br> On Tuesday 06 June 2006 20:39, Max Spevack wrote: > The summary from today's Fedora Project Board meeting is now available on > the wiki. Hi Board ;-) From the meeting: == We want to hold a FUDCon in Brazil. The nature/schedule of that FUDCon is going to depend on interest from the Brazilians, and from the local Ambassadors who will be responsible for a lot of the legwork. Similarly, if GregDeKoenigsberg and MaxSpevack want to try out different models for FUDCon (code sprints, open conferences, etc.) they should work on organizing something like that in the US, where it is close to home for them and they can easily coordinate/lead it. ACTION ITEM: MaxSpevack to begin FUDCon Brazil conversation with the Brazilian Ambassadors and ChristopherBlizzard. == I'm really glad to see this. We have a lots of events here and not one specially dedicated for Fedora Users. The Ambassadors are always organizing Fedora presence in some of the greatest events here and we are having pretty good results (specially for support and colaboration with our brazilian team). We have some good event skills, so we can help on the "legwork" a lot. If you need to contact us and begin talking about this, you can find all ambassadors and Fedora colaborators here in Brazil gathered in the mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/admindb/fedora-mktg-brazil (Don't mind the Portuguese mails, we can talk in English too) Or maybe use the Ambassadors list. You can choose. We also began having weekly meetings in IRC, channel #fedora-br under irc.freenode.net. Since today we'll have a meeting, I'm putting this under discussion with priority. Count on me and the brazilian ambassadors for everything regarding this :-) We'll make sure the event will be great! -- []'s Eitch http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/ "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." - Linus Torvalds From hugo at devin.com.br Wed Jun 7 15:41:36 2006 From: hugo at devin.com.br (Hugo Cisneiros) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:41:36 -0300 Subject: [fab] Re: Fedora Project Board Update (2006-06-06) (Correction) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200606071241.36972.hugo@devin.com.br> Sorry, I posted the wrong link to the fedora-mktg-list, the correct link is: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mktg-brazil -- []'s Eitch http://www.devin.com.br/eitch/ "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." - Linus Torvalds From gdk at redhat.com Wed Jun 7 19:32:55 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <200606062352.08960.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Max Spevack wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > > > I've started a new wiki page for this: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects > > > > ...and the flood gates have been opened. ;-) > > Great start -- I'll look at it more closely later on today. Thanks a lot > Patrick. > > --Max Comments: 1. I continue to assert that there are only two meaningful kinds of project: incubators/SIGs/whatever, and full-fledged projects. Why distinguish between "ideas" and "incubator projects"? Why does someone need "a plan of action" to "graduate" to incubator status? What's wrong with having 2000 incubator projects, 1500 of which overlap? 2. The statement that Fedora Ambassadors is a sub-project of Fedora Marketing implies that there's a functioning Fedora Marketing Project, and that it's official. Is this so? Who's the chair of the Fedora Marketing Project? Who's the steering committee? When does it meet? What is its purpose? --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From nman64 at n-man.com Wed Jun 7 21:55:25 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:55:25 -0500 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:32, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Comments: > > 1. I continue to assert that there are only two meaningful kinds of > project: incubators/SIGs/whatever, and full-fledged projects. Why > distinguish between "ideas" and "incubator projects"? Why does someone > need "a plan of action" to "graduate" to incubator status? What's wrong > with having 2000 incubator projects, 1500 of which overlap? A summary and a plan of action really aren't much to ask for, and the biggest reason for doing so is to avoid having to create and maintain 2000 wiki pages and 2000 new mailing lists that might not do anything. We've had a number of people throw out an idea, give it no further thought and start requesting mailing lists and assorted other resources or privileges, and that can put a strain on the people who can provide those things. If someone can't formulate a basic summary and plan, why should the rest of us put forth the time and effort to give them resources? Differentiating between an idea and an incubator project gives us the opportunity to say "these are the things you have to show us if you want us to set stuff up for you." > > 2. The statement that Fedora Ambassadors is a sub-project of Fedora > Marketing implies that there's a functioning Fedora Marketing Project, and > that it's official. Is this so? Who's the chair of the Fedora Marketing > Project? Who's the steering committee? When does it meet? What is its > purpose? > Originally, the Ambassadors program was started as a sub-project of Marketing, and Marketing had a bit more life at that time. While its current status can be disputed, it was the first example I thought of. Alternative examples are welcome. :-) (On a side-note, Marketing as a whole really ought to be revived to support and coordinate some of the smaller programs that have appeared under its umbrella.) -- 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 nman64 at n-man.com Wed Jun 7 21:56:46 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:56:46 -0500 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <13dbfe4f0606070946o25a59022u3c7d3bec1a6fc7d1@mail.gmail.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606070148.42604.nman64@n-man.com> <13dbfe4f0606070946o25a59022u3c7d3bec1a6fc7d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200606071656.48795.nman64@n-man.com> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 11:46, "Chitlesh GOORAH" wrote: > On 6/7/06, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > > That's definitely great progress. I didn't use the Interview idea in my > > example because of any fault in the idea, but rather that it illustrated > > my point brilliantly. The only thing that went wrong is that the project > > didn't get enough review before being presented to the general public. > > >From my point of view, Fedora Interview would be best in > Fedoranews.org rather than in f-p.org, don't you think ? These are the kinds of ideas and discussions that were skipped. ;-) -- 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 Wed Jun 7 22:11:10 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:32, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > > Comments: > > > > 1. I continue to assert that there are only two meaningful kinds of > > project: incubators/SIGs/whatever, and full-fledged projects. Why > > distinguish between "ideas" and "incubator projects"? Why does someone > > need "a plan of action" to "graduate" to incubator status? What's wrong > > with having 2000 incubator projects, 1500 of which overlap? > > A summary and a plan of action really aren't much to ask for, and the biggest > reason for doing so is to avoid having to create and maintain 2000 wiki pages > and 2000 new mailing lists that might not do anything. We've had a number of > people throw out an idea, give it no further thought and start requesting > mailing lists and assorted other resources or privileges, and that can put a > strain on the people who can provide those things. If someone can't > formulate a basic summary and plan, why should the rest of us put forth the > time and effort to give them resources? > > Differentiating between an idea and an incubator project gives us the > opportunity to say "these are the things you have to show us if you want us > to set stuff up for you." If the process of: 1. Creating a mailing list; 2. Creating a wiki page; 3. Creating an IRC channel and getting ChanServ on it; 4. Adding a one-paragraph description of "the new project", with links to the aforementioned wiki/mailing list/IRC channel; 5. Potentially creating a CVS repo... ...represents *actual overhead*, then I'd say that we've got other problems. Which we may well have, actually -- but if so, *those* are the problems we need to solve. I think the *real* fear is that we'll end up with a bunch of abandoned projects. This is fair, but personally, I don't see it as a bad thing, so long as there's a good way for potential contributors to tell the difference between "lively" and "dead" projects. We can also figure out how to reap dead projects so often. Every project, from the moment it's conceived in someone's mind, is incubating. We should do everything in our power to support every single one of these harebrained ideas. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From laroche at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 12:35:49 2006 From: laroche at redhat.com (Florian La Roche) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:35:49 +0200 Subject: [fab] Fedora Project Board meeting summary (june 6) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060608123549.GB5335@dudweiler.stuttgart.redhat.com> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:41:05PM -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > As said on f-announce-l, the summary from today's FPB meeting is available > on the wiki: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2006-06-06 On Fedora Legacy: If we don't want to work of the current cvs state, we could start creating "clean cvs repositories" by taking the current state of a release and importing that again into cvs. Then no surprises happen if newer patches are added. Normally this is not so good for update releases where developers often actively work on branches and need their "own sandbox to work with". regards, Florian La Roche From mspevack at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 14:22:05 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:22:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] ignore me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Working on setting up a read-only child of f-a-b that anyone can > subscribe to. still trying From mspevack at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 14:59:59 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 10:59:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] ignore me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > still trying This one's gonna be the winner, or I'm seriously going to consider banning myself from posting due to spamming the list. :-) From mspevack at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 15:24:36 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] f-a-b readonly is live Message-ID: Now I can stop posting to the "ignore me" thread. :-) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:22:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Max Spevack To: fedora-announce-list at redhat.com Subject: readonly copy of fedora-advisory-board list Just wanted to let you all know that I've got a readonly copy of the fedora-advisory-board mailing list setup. fedora-advisory-board is the list on which the Fedora Board conducts its business, and its membership is comprised of the Fedora Board members, and many of the folks on different Fedora Steering Committees, leaders within the community and within Red Hat. Many people have said that they appreciate the transparency into the work of the Board, but that it would be far easier to get that transparency if there was a readonly copy of the list to which they could subscribe. http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Have fun! -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From blizzard at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 18:13:04 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:13:04 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <448868B0.9070403@redhat.com> Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > I think the *real* fear is that we'll end up with a bunch of abandoned > projects. This is fair, but personally, I don't see it as a bad thing, so > long as there's a good way for potential contributors to tell the > difference between "lively" and "dead" projects. We can also figure out > how to reap dead projects so often. > > Every project, from the moment it's conceived in someone's mind, is > incubating. We should do everything in our power to support every single > one of these harebrained ideas. [ Sorry, a bit behind here. ] I have to say that I'm not sure that I'm that worried about what Patrick laid out in his original mail. Let's enable people to fail early and often. The more ideas and people the better. And we don't want to shut people or ideas down unless they are downright evil or trading in our our good name (our single asset) on something that's clearly wrong. But greg does make a great point here. Culling ideas of projects that have failed is something we have to do on a regular basis. --Chris From blizzard at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 18:15:08 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:15:08 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > There are two classes of "project" in Fedora. > > Incubator project: any project that has a mailing list, a home on the > wiki, and an IRC channel. Can be created by anybody following simple > rules with an hour of work. If one person is willing to follow his or > her own Fedora project, well by gum, it's an incubator project. We can > institute basic rules to keep them sane: > + No wiki posts or mailing list posts within six months: gone. > + Majority vote of the board: gone. > > Official project: any project that has all of these things, plus: > + a clearly articulated goal. > + a steering committee with a chair. > + regular meetings of the steering committee to ensure that > progress is being made towards the goal. > > Life in Simple-Land is great. We eat cheap Chinese food from the same > restaurant every day, and we only wear jeans and t-shirts that we get from > trade shows. Do we have something other than "project" that we can use for a name? Project is strongly linked to software, but I think that a lot of the activities that we're encouraging are actually not software but promoting ideas. Project to me means mailing list, a home page, downloads, etc. Can we brainstorm a bit for something else to call the collections of enthusiasts that we love? --Chris From tchung at fedoraproject.org Thu Jun 8 18:37:39 2006 From: tchung at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Chung) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 11:37:39 -0700 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> Message-ID: <369bce3b0606081137i520e38abk9a2ada8cf218ab4a@mail.gmail.com> On 6/8/06, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Do we have something other than "project" that we can use for a name? > Project is strongly linked to software, but I think that a lot of the > activities that we're encouraging are actually not software but > promoting ideas. Project to me means mailing list, a home page, > downloads, etc. Can we brainstorm a bit for something else to call the > collections of enthusiasts that we love? > > --Chris "Program" maybe? For exampe, we have FreeMedia Program[1] and SponsoredMedia Program[2]. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/FreeMedia [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/SponsoredMedia Regards, -- Thomas Chung http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung From mspevack at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 19:10:00 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <369bce3b0606081137i520e38abk9a2ada8cf218ab4a@mail.gmail.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> <369bce3b0606081137i520e38abk9a2ada8cf218ab4a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Fedora Project - the overall umbrella Fedora XXXXX - Core, Extras, Docs, Ambassadors, etc. Fedora Incubator - as described. We need a name for the XXXXX that isn't also "project" because it's confusing. "The Fedora Project is a collection of... projects. Any questions?" To me "program" just sounds boring. The next thing to do seems to be: 1. Finish the guidelines 2. Apply the guidelines to everything we can think of, determine where it fits. 3. Retire http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects and put a new page up that is an authoritative list, based on 2. 4. Wait for people to complain, point out stuff we missed, and demonstrate why they should be in one bucket or the other, or not mentioned at all. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From gdk at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 19:17:14 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:17:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > Do we have something other than "project" that we can use for a name? > Project is strongly linked to software, but I think that a lot of the > activities that we're encouraging are actually not software but > promoting ideas. Project to me means mailing list, a home page, > downloads, etc. Can we brainstorm a bit for something else to call the > collections of enthusiasts that we love? Gang? --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From tchung at fedoraproject.org Thu Jun 8 19:36:37 2006 From: tchung at fedoraproject.org (Thomas Chung) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:36:37 -0700 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> Message-ID: <369bce3b0606081236r4026367bk91560c8bb631e8a2@mail.gmail.com> On 6/8/06, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > > > Do we have something other than "project" that we can use for a name? > > Project is strongly linked to software, but I think that a lot of the > > activities that we're encouraging are actually not software but > > promoting ideas. Project to me means mailing list, a home page, > > downloads, etc. Can we brainstorm a bit for something else to call the > > collections of enthusiasts that we love? > > Gang? > > --g Team? As in Fedora Ambassadors Team or Fedora Documentation Team. Regards, -- Thomas Chung http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThomasChung From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Thu Jun 8 19:42:25 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 15:42:25 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <369bce3b0606081236r4026367bk91560c8bb631e8a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> <369bce3b0606081236r4026367bk91560c8bb631e8a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1149795745.4313.8.camel@cutter> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:36 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote: > On 6/8/06, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > > > > > Do we have something other than "project" that we can use for a name? > > > Project is strongly linked to software, but I think that a lot of the > > > activities that we're encouraging are actually not software but > > > promoting ideas. Project to me means mailing list, a home page, > > > downloads, etc. Can we brainstorm a bit for something else to call the > > > collections of enthusiasts that we love? > > > > Gang? > > > > --g > > Team? As in Fedora Ambassadors Team or Fedora Documentation Team. > Regards, Ugh - sounds like HR speak for 'employee' Wait - let's call them 'Associates' /me goes to retch. -sv From notting at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 19:39:07 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 15:39:07 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> <369bce3b0606081137i520e38abk9a2ada8cf218ab4a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060608193907.GB1962@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Max Spevack (mspevack at redhat.com) said: > Fedora Project - the overall umbrella > > Fedora XXXXX - Core, Extras, Docs, Ambassadors, etc. > Fedora Incubator - as described. > > We need a name for the XXXXX that isn't also "project" because it's > confusing. > > "The Fedora Project is a collection of... projects. Any questions?" > > To me "program" just sounds boring. So... options: a) swap the two. The Fedora Program is a colletcion of projects b) use a new word for something... call the incubators proposals? undertaking? initiatives? "The Fedora Initiative was created in 2003 by Red Hat, Inc. and the community. Following in the footsteps of visionaries such as [cut] imagined a large scale community project where developers, users, and others could pursue work in open source software, collaboration, education, free content, market[cut]" OK, I'll stop now. Bill From gdk at redhat.com Thu Jun 8 20:11:32 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:11:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <20060608193907.GB1962@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> <369bce3b0606081137i520e38abk9a2ada8cf218ab4a@mail.gmail.com> <20060608193907.GB1962@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: Collective: "The Fedora Documentation Collective is pleased to present its Five Year Plan. All hail Comrade Karsten, the Great Father of the Fedora Documentation Collective!" Cell: "Fedora Extras Cell fully operational. The crow flies at midnight. Fidelio." Team doesn't suck too bad, I suppose. "Join the Fedora Freemedia Team." Could be worse. Conceptually, it's pretty close. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Max Spevack (mspevack at redhat.com) said: > > Fedora Project - the overall umbrella > > > > Fedora XXXXX - Core, Extras, Docs, Ambassadors, etc. > > Fedora Incubator - as described. > > > > We need a name for the XXXXX that isn't also "project" because it's > > confusing. > > > > "The Fedora Project is a collection of... projects. Any questions?" > > > > To me "program" just sounds boring. > > So... options: > > a) swap the two. The Fedora Program is a colletcion of projects > b) use a new word for something... call the incubators proposals? > undertaking? initiatives? > > "The Fedora Initiative was created in 2003 by Red Hat, Inc. and > the community. Following in the footsteps of visionaries such > as [cut] imagined a large scale community project where developers, > users, and others could pursue work in open source software, collaboration, > education, free content, market[cut]" > > OK, I'll stop now. > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Thu Jun 8 20:44:15 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:44:15 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> <369bce3b0606081137i520e38abk9a2ada8cf218ab4a@mail.gmail.com> <20060608193907.GB1962@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1149799455.5679.0.camel@cutter> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 16:11 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Collective: "The Fedora Documentation Collective is pleased to present its > Five Year Plan. All hail Comrade Karsten, the Great Father of the Fedora > Documentation Collective!" > > Cell: "Fedora Extras Cell fully operational. The crow flies at midnight. > Fidelio." > > Team doesn't suck too bad, I suppose. "Join the Fedora Freemedia Team." > Could be worse. Conceptually, it's pretty close. subnode of unimatrix 01 would be better. Resistance is futile. -sv From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Thu Jun 8 21:45:39 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian.Iseli at licr.org) Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 23:45:39 +0200 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:15:08 EDT." <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200606082145.k58Ljo30028953@mx3.redhat.com> blizzard at redhat.com said: > Can we brainstorm a bit for something else to call the collections of > enthusiasts that we love? Fellowship (Tolkienesque) Tribe (tribal thing) Lodge (Freemasonry) Group (pretty plain) College or Collegium (a bit of Latin...) School (a bit fishy) Christian From bmogilefsky at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 18:53:26 2006 From: bmogilefsky at gmail.com (Bret Mogilefsky) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 11:53:26 -0700 Subject: [fab] Version control ACLs Message-ID: Hello, Reading the below section from the minutes about version control ACLs, I can offer some information since I faced these same questions not long ago. Subversion has very good ACL support. You can do it at two levels... One, using normal Apache semantics. And two, using very fine-grained user groupings applied to specific paths in the repository. The reference in the Subversion manual for the latter is here: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.serverconfig.httpd.html#svn.serverconfig.httpd.authz.perdir Since it's an Apache module, nothing really precludes you from ripping that out and driving it from a backend such as a DB or LDAP instead of a file; not sure if anyone who's done that has shared their code, though. Since it applies to arbitrary paths in the repo, and you determine SVN repo layout yourself according to how things are packaged and released (ie tags are first class version-controlled items), it seems like it would suit the CVS ACL requirements below quite well. Side note: people who are used to CVS face nothing but pleasant surprises when switching to Subversion, meaning very little rocking of the boat if Subversion is your pick. DARCs, monotone, git, arch, etc. all have lots to offer, but are of a different species than CVS and Subversion and entail rethinking your development strategy from scratch, which sounds like it's out of scope here.... Hope that saves you a little time, Bret -----8<---- Some potential requirements to use as a starting point: * We need a version control system that allows ACLs on particular branches. * What sort of work will be required to make an existing tool fit our needs (if it doesn't already)? * Do we have to restrict to one tool? Consensus is yes. Don't want to mirror commits, and moving things between two systems doesn't improve the current problems that we have between Core and Extras. ACTION ITEM: * WarrenTogami and ElliotLee are tasked with leading this effort, but it must involve consultation from many others in order for it to be successful. Separately, what does it entail to support ACLs in our existing CVS model, in order to meet people's needs. This is something that Extras has been asking for, for example. Would the ACLs be on a per package basis, or a per package, per release basis. -----8<---- From sopwith at gmail.com Wed Jun 7 22:28:42 2006 From: sopwith at gmail.com (Elliot Lee) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:28:42 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2006, at 18:11, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > If the process of: > > 1. Creating a mailing list; > 2. Creating a wiki page; > 3. Creating an IRC channel and getting ChanServ on it; > 4. Adding a one-paragraph description of "the new project", with > links to > the aforementioned wiki/mailing list/IRC channel; > 5. Potentially creating a CVS repo... > > ...represents *actual overhead*, then I'd say that we've got other > problems. Which we may well have, actually -- but if so, *those* > are the > problems we need to solve. It does wind up being real overhead currently. (Getting a mailing list created typically takes a week, for example. And it's just a lot to wade through when you're thinking big lofty thoughts instead of administrativia.) At the same time, I do think there should be a (very low) bar to getting a project publicized and promoted as being connected with Fedora... Just enough to make sure people are aware of the work it will take to make their project successful. > I think the *real* fear is that we'll end up with a bunch of abandoned > projects. This is fair, but personally, I don't see it as a bad > thing, so > long as there's a good way for potential contributors to tell the > difference between "lively" and "dead" projects. We can also > figure out > how to reap dead projects so often. It's like making movies - you can never tell which ones are going to flop or fly, so you just have to go through all the flops to get the fliers. The main thing of importance is having movie reviewers who will help people find the good stuff. :) Best, -- Elliot From sopwith at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 22:06:12 2006 From: sopwith at gmail.com (Elliot Lee) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:06:12 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <200606082145.k58Ljo30028953@mx3.redhat.com> References: <200606082145.k58Ljo30028953@mx3.redhat.com> Message-ID: "Cabal" Then we could put banner ads on slashdot proclaiming: "Join the Cabal" :) -- Elliot On Jun 8, 2006, at 17:45, Christian.Iseli at licr.org wrote: > > blizzard at redhat.com said: >> Can we brainstorm a bit for something else to call the >> collections of >> enthusiasts that we love? > > Fellowship (Tolkienesque) > Tribe (tribal thing) > Lodge (Freemasonry) > Group (pretty plain) > College or Collegium (a bit of Latin...) > School (a bit fishy) From sopwith at gmail.com Thu Jun 8 22:52:54 2006 From: sopwith at gmail.com (Elliot Lee) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:52:54 -0400 Subject: [fab] Integrate Legacy In-Reply-To: <92A94EA9-616B-49D9-B4C9-D7D32757398D@gmail.com> References: <1149532080.3171.20.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> <92A94EA9-616B-49D9-B4C9-D7D32757398D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9E769ACA-AF2A-4F24-AF1A-DFED3156BEB8@gmail.com> A rough sketch of what I think needs to happen: 1. Having the version control system for Fedora Core be on cvs.fedoraproject.org This would allow you to just keep using the branches that were already in place for 2. Covering the details of setting up the Fedora build machines to allow building for those older distros You may have problems doing it with pre-RHL 7.3, because I know a few of the very old RHL packages would not build as non-root. 3. Getting the publishing stuff going. I think a setup similar to Fedora Extras should work (extras64.linux.duke.edu has the master copy, and the internal RH plumbing gets it onto the main download site). Step #2 perhaps blocks on #1, which will take a while itself, but we can do step #3 independently without waiting for anything, if you'd like. I do think there is some stuff we can do right now to make progress... Best, -- Elliot On Jun 7, 2006, at 04:07, Elliot Lee wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2006, at 14:28, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> I would really like to see some movement on integrating Legacy >> into the >> existing Fedora infrastructure. What does this involve? >> >> * Plague instance for Legacy. >> - Building of RHL7.3/9 packages(?), FC1->3 >> >> * CVS tree to use >> - copies of current FC (and RHL?) trees to commit changes to >> - Support in account system for ACLs >> >> * Publishing software >> - Currently we push to download.fedoralegacy.org in our own tree >> format. We should push to download.fedora.redhat.com and use the >> real >> mirror system >> - Sign+Push software and users. A few people know the Legacy >> key and >> could push. >> >> Some of these can be done in stages. Currently we don't use CVS to >> manage our changes (ick) but we could get a Plague instance up and >> running prior to having CVS, and that could be added later. >> Likewise we >> could continue to hand sign/push our packages to our current mirror >> structure before moving into download.fedora space. >> >> There are some questionmarks regarding RHL support. Personally I >> would >> really like to see Legacy's support of RHL die with FC6 Test2. >> Then we >> would only have to worry about building FC3+FC4 packages in the >> Legacy >> space. This would make it much easier for CVS, for the build system, >> for the publishing tool, etc... However there is bound to be >> resistance >> to dropping said support. However, we could also keep that separate. >> Continue to support RHL through our existing build system, while >> we move >> the FC support to the Fedora infrastructure. Lots of options >> there, and >> headaches there. >> >> Anyway, I'd like a clear Go Ahead from the Board to start talking >> to the >> folks necessary to make these things happen. >> -- >> Jesse Keating >> Release Engineer: Fedora >> _______________________________________________ >> fedora-advisory-board mailing list >> fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com >> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Jun 9 14:22:44 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:22:44 -0400 Subject: [fab] Integrate Legacy In-Reply-To: <9E769ACA-AF2A-4F24-AF1A-DFED3156BEB8@gmail.com> References: <1149532080.3171.20.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> <92A94EA9-616B-49D9-B4C9-D7D32757398D@gmail.com> <9E769ACA-AF2A-4F24-AF1A-DFED3156BEB8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1149862964.7833.2.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 18:52 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote: > A rough sketch of what I think needs to happen: > 1. Having the version control system for Fedora Core be on > cvs.fedoraproject.org > This would allow you to just keep using the branches that were > already in place for This is certainly the long term goal, but in the mean time we should _really_ get stuff into a CVS of some form. I'm perfectly happy with a snapshot of the CVS tree as it is released to Legacy. > 2. Covering the details of setting up the Fedora build machines to > allow building for those older distros > You may have problems doing it with pre-RHL 7.3, because I know a > few of the very old RHL packages would not build as non-root. We won't be building anything pre7.3, and if I get my way, we won't be building anything pre FC2/3. > 3. Getting the publishing stuff going. > I think a setup similar to Fedora Extras should work > (extras64.linux.duke.edu has the master copy, and the > internal RH plumbing gets it onto the main download site). Should work. Currently our single build box has the master copy that we sync up to download.fedoralegacy.org at Duke, which is then hit by our mirroring system. So things wouldn't change too much. > Step #2 perhaps blocks on #1, which will take a while itself, but we > can do step #3 independently without waiting for anything, if you'd > like. I do think there is some stuff we can do right now to make > progress... I'd rather not wait for #1 to get revision control in place. It really is important for being able to bring more developers into the project and having some kind of sane workflow. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 katzj at redhat.com Fri Jun 9 14:31:05 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:31:05 -0400 Subject: [fab] Integrate Legacy In-Reply-To: <1149862964.7833.2.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> References: <1149532080.3171.20.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> <92A94EA9-616B-49D9-B4C9-D7D32757398D@gmail.com> <9E769ACA-AF2A-4F24-AF1A-DFED3156BEB8@gmail.com> <1149862964.7833.2.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1149863465.7647.2.camel@aglarond.local> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:22 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 18:52 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote: > > Step #2 perhaps blocks on #1, which will take a while itself, but we > > can do step #3 independently without waiting for anything, if you'd > > like. I do think there is some stuff we can do right now to make > > progress... > > I'd rather not wait for #1 to get revision control in place. It really > is important for being able to bring more developers into the project > and having some kind of sane workflow. ... and I really think the "copy the existing branches to /cvs/legacy, work from there" isn't a bad thing to handle things so that we can get you going now. Jeremy From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Jun 9 15:26:05 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:26:05 -0400 Subject: [fab] Integrate Legacy In-Reply-To: <1149863465.7647.2.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1149532080.3171.20.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> <92A94EA9-616B-49D9-B4C9-D7D32757398D@gmail.com> <9E769ACA-AF2A-4F24-AF1A-DFED3156BEB8@gmail.com> <1149862964.7833.2.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> <1149863465.7647.2.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <1149866765.7833.14.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 10:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > ... and I really think the "copy the existing branches to /cvs/legacy, > work from there" isn't a bad thing to handle things so that we can get > you going now. Completely agreed. I was operating under the assumption that the first cut would be a completely separate CVS root that we can control with ACLs via the Fedora Account System. Basically to start with anybody in Legacy group would have access to the CVS. Reviewers and testers need not be in the group, but developers need to be. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Fri Jun 9 12:38:50 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:38:50 -0400 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <13dbfe4f0606062151k66772e32oa5b9a991fb18e429@mail.gmail.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <7f617d270606061214s358c90beu207f10cc749bd5f2@mail.gmail.com> <13dbfe4f0606062151k66772e32oa5b9a991fb18e429@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1149856730.13434.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 06:51 +0200, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: > The another thing is that here DamienDurand is not alone with his > Interview Idea. He has followed a "certain procedure". He pinged me a > month ago about his idea and we have been working on this along with > ThomasCanniot as well. In that procedure, we call for "peer review" to > Patrick on irc before the announcement on the ML. IRC is not the place for peer review. It is the place for gathering consensus before you submit an idea to public scrutiny via the mailing list, where real peer review can be done. With IRC you are relying on the "say-so" of whoever happens to be there at the time, whereas the mailing list has much more non-realtime visibility. > DamienDurand proposed interview to BobJensen and MaxSpevack and they > both agreed to answer our questions. I think that this project has a > momentum to start became a big one. No one is saying that having interviews is a bad idea, but keep in mind Red Hat Magazine currently runs these kind of interviews and Fedora community people are encouraged to participate there. It's worth pointing out (with no ill will intended -- the effort was very laudable IMHO) the one interview article that I've seen so far is poorly written and not up to what I would consider general standards of publication, nor those I expect from under the "Fedora" umbrella. Peer review and editorial input would have helped alleviate that problem. RHM is a vehicle for that input as well as offering a "feedback input" from the readership. RHM periodically allows readers to respond with data on how much they benefited from an article, whereas this "new" interview initiative does not seem to have any such mechanism. > > Patrick, want to take a stab at a short and snappy set of rules? > > Famsco can then vote. > > I consider Peer review needs to be a must and as well we have to make > the difference between a SIG and an official project. Agreed, that's what this discussion is about. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 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 stickster at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 12:24:21 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:24:21 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1149795745.4313.8.camel@cutter> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> <369bce3b0606081236r4026367bk91560c8bb631e8a2@mail.gmail.com> <1149795745.4313.8.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1149855861.13434.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 15:42 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:36 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote: > > On 6/8/06, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > > > > > > > Do we have something other than "project" that we can use for a name? > > > > Project is strongly linked to software, but I think that a lot of the > > > > activities that we're encouraging are actually not software but > > > > promoting ideas. Project to me means mailing list, a home page, > > > > downloads, etc. Can we brainstorm a bit for something else to call the > > > > collections of enthusiasts that we love? > > > > > > Gang? > > > > > > --g > > > > Team? As in Fedora Ambassadors Team or Fedora Documentation Team. > > Regards, > > Ugh - sounds like HR speak for 'employee' > > Wait - let's call them 'Associates' > > /me goes to retch. I dunno, "team" is pretty generic. No one playing football (on either side of the pond) seems to have a problem with it. Hmm, "club"? Too Mickey Mouse. "League"? "Fedora Justice League to the rescue!" "Cadre"? "Corps"? "Assemblage"? "Consortium"? /me suggests "Team" and a bottle of Pepto Bismol at the ready for Seth. :-) P.S. I think "Fedora Project" is fine as is for the umbrella. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 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 stickster at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 12:39:04 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 08:39:04 -0400 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <200606071656.48795.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606070148.42604.nman64@n-man.com> <13dbfe4f0606070946o25a59022u3c7d3bec1a6fc7d1@mail.gmail.com> <200606071656.48795.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <1149856745.13434.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 16:56 -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 11:46, "Chitlesh GOORAH" > wrote: > > On 6/7/06, Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > > > That's definitely great progress. I didn't use the Interview idea in my > > > example because of any fault in the idea, but rather that it illustrated > > > my point brilliantly. The only thing that went wrong is that the project > > > didn't get enough review before being presented to the general public. > > > > >From my point of view, Fedora Interview would be best in > > Fedoranews.org rather than in f-p.org, don't you think ? > > These are the kinds of ideas and discussions that were skipped. ;-) +1. Thus the mailing lists rather than IRC (see previous comment this thread). -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 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 skvidal at linux.duke.edu Fri Jun 9 19:19:04 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:19:04 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1149855861.13434.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> <369bce3b0606081236r4026367bk91560c8bb631e8a2@mail.gmail.com> <1149795745.4313.8.camel@cutter> <1149855861.13434.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1149880744.8221.43.camel@cutter> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 08:24 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > I dunno, "team" is pretty generic. No one playing football (on either > side of the pond) seems to have a problem with it. Hmm, "club"? Too > Mickey Mouse. "League"? "Fedora Justice League to the rescue!" > "Cadre"? "Corps"? "Assemblage"? "Consortium"? > > /me suggests "Team" and a bottle of Pepto Bismol at the ready for > Seth. :-) As long as I get a little blue vest and something below a living wage. mmmm labor reform mmmm :) -sv From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jun 9 19:29:46 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:29:46 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1149880744.8221.43.camel@cutter> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> <369bce3b0606081236r4026367bk91560c8bb631e8a2@mail.gmail.com> <1149795745.4313.8.camel@cutter> <1149855861.13434.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1149880744.8221.43.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1149881386.19525.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 15:19 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 08:24 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > I dunno, "team" is pretty generic. No one playing football (on either > > side of the pond) seems to have a problem with it. Hmm, "club"? Too > > Mickey Mouse. "League"? "Fedora Justice League to the rescue!" > > "Cadre"? "Corps"? "Assemblage"? "Consortium"? > > > > /me suggests "Team" and a bottle of Pepto Bismol at the ready for > > Seth. :-) > > As long as I get a little blue vest and something below a living wage. > > mmmm labor reform mmmm Please refer to the wiki for guidelines on flair. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 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 kwade at redhat.com Sat Jun 10 16:24:22 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:24:22 -0700 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <1149956662.6033.104.camel@erato.phig.org> On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 18:28 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote: > It does wind up being real overhead currently. (Getting a mailing > list created typically takes a week, for example. And it's just a lot > to wade through when you're thinking big lofty thoughts instead of > administrativia.) If anyone is wondering about the value a content and collaboration platform brings us, this is definitely the area. It greatly reduces the overhead and increases participation. For example, this is the exchange I had with Steve Milner (ashcrow); this took place over the course of three minutes on IRC, and the work involved for me was less than one minute: quaid: is there one for python? ashcrow: not yet :) but easy to make as soon as someone wants it if we can get one that would be great. I have some py code that I might move in to it * quaid makes one sweet ashcrow: done https://python.108.redhat.com awesome!!!! made you a project owner, too, so feel free to customize Now, I've been involved in other new project creation with Fedora, and so I know intimately what it would take to get the same set of resources for a new project. As Sopwith says, it is about a week to complete, involves several steps with completely different tools or groups, and requires much more brain thinking than, "Just a minute ... ok, it's done." What we've done to help the process is to make a simple workflow for project requests. Fill out a short form and it gets into a queue, we review and make the project. I can review and create a project within a minute. Ashcrow and everyone he adds to the project now have an SVN repository, as many mailing lists and forums as they wish that can be created in a minute, document management, an editable space at a fixed URL, etc. This is why I think it is imperative that we work in parallel. One side we create processes to control project creation within our current framework. On the other side, we work as fast as we can to bring up a new content and collaboration space into being. The procedures/governance from the first inform the build-out of the second. - 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 Sat Jun 10 16:28:43 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:28:43 -0700 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <369bce3b0606081137i520e38abk9a2ada8cf218ab4a@mail.gmail.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <1149552562.3899.14.camel@aglarond.local> <4488692C.6090901@redhat.com> <369bce3b0606081137i520e38abk9a2ada8cf218ab4a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1149956924.6033.108.camel@erato.phig.org> On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:37 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote: > "Program" maybe? In formal project management, a program is a collection of projects. I advise against us using these terms in reverse (Fedora Project being a collection of Fedora Programs). It will foster confusion in anyone trained or familiar with generic program management. Also, programs are a piece of software, in the minds of many people. - 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 Sat Jun 10 16:35:24 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:35:24 -0700 Subject: [fab] Re: [Famsco-list] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1149856730.13434.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <7f617d270606061214s358c90beu207f10cc749bd5f2@mail.gmail.com> <13dbfe4f0606062151k66772e32oa5b9a991fb18e429@mail.gmail.com> <1149856730.13434.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1149957324.6033.112.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 08:38 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > RHM is a vehicle for that input as well as offering a "feedback input" > from the readership. RHM periodically allows readers to respond with > data on how much they benefited from an article, whereas this "new" > interview initiative does not seem to have any such mechanism. BTW, I understand that RHM is improving the feedback mechanism. For example, my last article and the one in the coming issue have forum threads for discussion in my Articles forum (on quaid.108). This thread is now linked from the bottom of the article. Anyway, I would love to see a greater role for FDP in peer review, such as editing Fedora Interviews. Figuring out how to get FDP in the review loop is a good thing for us to discuss about a new project before it gets entirely out in the wild. :) - 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 Mon Jun 12 19:37:39 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:37:39 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> Message-ID: <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> As FC6 planning continues apace, I'd like to make sure that we don't lose sight of this topic. Is there any way we can push this forward? It's irritating that we have licenses that are neither free software nor under OSI-approved licenses. Who is the logical point person for this? M On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 21:57 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:08:26PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > > I'm wondering what you guys think about changing the tilt of Fedora from > > > open source to free software. Namely, saying that the license should > > > meet the free software definition ( > > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) and then mentioning that > > > OSI-certified licenses (with the exception of the Reciprocal Public > > > License, which we're going to reevaluate) are a good list, as well as > > > the free software licenses that are listed on the FSF website. > > > > > > The goal is to make Fedora a distribution that the FSF can positively > > > endorse. I think we're really close. Any reason to not try to go all > > > the way? > > > > Do we have an idea of what we would need to drop to be completely free > > software definition compliant? > > > > What would we lose? > > > > I guess a few rpm queries on license should work. > > what licenses are we looking for? > > At a glance of Core -devel, the following packages don't have licenses > that are explicitly on the FSF's list: > > tog-pegasus Open Group Pegasus Open Source (motif) > tog-pegasus-devel Open Group Pegasus Open Source > openmotif Open Group Public License > openmotif-devel Open Group Public License > xorg-x11-proto-devel The Open Group License > xorg-x11-util-macros The Open Group License > > jdepend Clarkware License > jdepend-demo Clarkware License > jdepend-javadoc Clarkware License > > adaptx Exolab Software License > adaptx-doc Exolab Software License > adaptx-javadoc Exolab Software License > castor Exolab Software License > castor-demo Exolab Software License > castor-doc Exolab Software License > castor-javadoc Exolab Software License > castor-test Exolab Software License > castor-xml Exolab Software License > > latex2html Free To Use But Restricted (See LICENSE) > > tanukiwrapper Tanuki Software License (open source) > tanukiwrapper-demo Tanuki Software License (open source) > tanukiwrapper-javadoc Tanuki Software License (open source) > tanukiwrapper-manual Tanuki Software License (open source) > > libc-client University of Washington Free-Fork License > libc-client-devel University of Washington Free-Fork License > > xdoclet XDoclet Open Source Licence > xdoclet-javadoc XDoclet Open Source Licence > xdoclet-manual XDoclet Open Source Licence > > > For that matter, none of these are on the OSI's list either explicitly. > > Then there's all of the "distributable" License tags, and the packages > marked "various". > > So yes, close, but not a done deal. > > Thanks, > Matt > > > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board From smooge at gmail.com Mon Jun 12 21:50:31 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:50:31 -0600 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <80d7e4090606121450i43d3a3f9uad8fad6a4e604302@mail.gmail.com> On 6/12/06, Michael Tiemann wrote: > > As FC6 planning continues apace, I'd like to make sure that we don't > lose sight of this topic. Is there any way we can push this forward? > It's irritating that we have licenses that are neither free software nor > under OSI-approved licenses. Who is the logical point person for this? Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping that the License tag is accurate. There are about 238 packages that need 'cleanups' in one form or another.. my counting had to be done by hand because style issues. Total Packages: 1155 GPL Only: 504 LGPL Only: 137 MIT/X11: 119 BSD: 58 Artistic/GPL: 42 MIT: 16 GPL/LGPL: 14 Public Domain: 17 Apache Software License: 46 MPL: 4 CPL: 9? GPL combination: 29 LGPL combination: 13 Python: 5 Lots of Style Issues in others: "Artistic or GPL" vs "GPL or Artistic" "LGPL/GPL" vs "GPL/LGPL" vs "GPL,LGPL" vs "LGPL, GPL" "Apache Software License" vs "Apache Software License 2.0" vs "Apache License" "GPL2" vs "GPLv2" vs "GNU GPL version 2" "IBM Public License" vs "IBM Common Public License (CPL) v1.0" vs ... "X License" vs "X11" The rest: 28 distributable 25 Distributable 6 BSDish 5 BSD-style 4 freeware 4 Artistic 3 Freely distributable 3 Free 3 BSD-like 3 BSD style 3 BSD Style 2 The Open Group License 2 Redistributable, with restrictions 2 OSI certified 2 LaTeX Project Public License (http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt) 2 Freely Distributable 2 Exolab Software License 2 CDDL 1 zlib License 1 freely distributable 1 eGenix.com Public License (Python) 1 XFree86 1 XDoclet Open Source Licence 1 X11-style 1 X License 1 W3C IPR 1 Various licenses 1 Various 1 University of Washington Free-Fork License 1 The PHP License v3.01 1 The PHP License 3.0 1 Tanuki Software License (open source) 1 Special (see COPYING.TXT.gz) 1 Sendmail 1 SLIB 1 Public Use License v1.0 1 OpenLDAP 1 Open Group Public License 1 Open Group Pegasus Open Source 1 MIT-style 1 MIT, freely distributable. 1 MIT X11 1 JPackage License 1 GNU FDL 1 GFDL 1 Freeware 1 Free To Use But Restricted (See LICENSE) 1 FDL 1 Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 (EPL) < http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html> 1 EPL (Eclipse Public License) < http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html> 1 EPL 1 Distributable (BSD-like) 1 Creative Commons ShareAlike 1 Copyright \uffff 1999-2006 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Clarkware License 1 Boost Software License 1 BSD-compatible 1 Apacheish -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From smooge at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 18:55:26 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:55:26 -0600 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090606121450i43d3a3f9uad8fad6a4e604302@mail.gmail.com> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090606121450i43d3a3f9uad8fad6a4e604302@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090606131155la514893lbf2be946ed06bea7@mail.gmail.com> On 6/12/06, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On 6/12/06, Michael Tiemann wrote: > > > As FC6 planning continues apace, I'd like to make sure that we don't > > lose sight of this topic. Is there any way we can push this forward? > > It's irritating that we have licenses that are neither free software nor > > under OSI-approved licenses. Who is the logical point person for this? > > > > Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping that > the License tag is accurate. There are about 238 packages that need > 'cleanups' in one form or another.. my counting had to be done by hand > because style issues. > > Total Packages: 1155 > GPL Only: 504 > LGPL Only: 137 > MIT/X11: 119 > BSD: 58 > Artistic/GPL: 42 > MIT: 16 > GPL/LGPL: 14 > Public Domain: 17 > Is it worth filing bugs against the 200+ packages that need a cleanup? And who would formulate a standard Licensing schema for this? [Again is it worth it.. beyond pub arguments?] In this case (and when I had to document all the licenses on an RHEL-4 system for ISO-9000), it would have been nice to have a standard scheme: GPL version 2 or higher [See /usr/share/LICENSES/GPL_V2] GPL version 2 ONLY LGPL version 2 or higher GPL vers2++/LGPL vers2++ Artistic Artistic/GPL vers2++ MPL version 1.1 Again this might just be only good for pub arguments. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Jun 13 19:04:14 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:04:14 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090606131155la514893lbf2be946ed06bea7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090606121450i43d3a3f9uad8fad6a4e604302@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090606131155la514893lbf2be946ed06bea7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <448F0C2E.30308@math.unl.edu> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping > that the License tag is accurate. There are about 238 packages that > need 'cleanups' in one form or another.. my counting had to be done > by hand because style issues. > > Total Packages: 1155 > GPL Only: 504 > LGPL Only: 137 > MIT/X11: 119 > BSD: 58 > Artistic/GPL: 42 > MIT: 16 > GPL/LGPL: 14 > Public Domain: 17 > Is it worth filing bugs against the 200+ packages that need a cleanup? I'd suggest waiting at least until a license format standard/guideline is chosen. > And who would formulate a standard Licensing schema for this? [Again is > it worth it.. beyond pub arguments?] I'd argue this should fall under Fedora Packaging Guidelines. -- Rex From smooge at gmail.com Tue Jun 13 19:10:39 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:10:39 -0600 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <448F0C2E.30308@math.unl.edu> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090606121450i43d3a3f9uad8fad6a4e604302@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090606131155la514893lbf2be946ed06bea7@mail.gmail.com> <448F0C2E.30308@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <80d7e4090606131210m27d61658u7b8e36d60e41c37b@mail.gmail.com> On 6/13/06, Rex Dieter wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping > > > Is it worth filing bugs against the 200+ packages that need a cleanup? > > I'd suggest waiting at least until a license format standard/guideline > is chosen. Yeah.. Not having those would be a waste of time. When they are finalized.. I could just send in Patches for all the packages after making sure that the license lines are true. > > And who would formulate a standard Licensing schema for this? [Again is > > it worth it.. beyond pub arguments?] > > I'd argue this should fall under Fedora Packaging Guidelines. > If I can be of help here.. ping me. Otherwise I will just get out of the way until I can be of use. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jun 13 19:22:35 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:22:35 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090606131155la514893lbf2be946ed06bea7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090606121450i43d3a3f9uad8fad6a4e604302@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090606131155la514893lbf2be946ed06bea7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1150226555.11731.34.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 12:55 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Is it worth filing bugs against the 200+ packages that need a cleanup? > And who would formulate a standard Licensing schema for this? [Again > is it worth it.. beyond pub arguments?] In this case (and when I had > to document all the licenses on an RHEL-4 system for ISO-9000), it > would have been nice to have a standard scheme: Frankly this could be another QA "event" in the ever popular clean up our specs adventure. But as others stated, we need a clear guideline wrt these licenses before turning the community loose on filing bugs and attaching patches. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Jun 13 19:37:39 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:37:39 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090606131210m27d61658u7b8e36d60e41c37b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090606121450i43d3a3f9uad8fad6a4e604302@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090606131155la514893lbf2be946ed06bea7@mail.gmail.com> <448F0C2E.30308@math.unl.edu> <80d7e4090606131210m27d61658u7b8e36d60e41c37b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <448F1403.7080708@math.unl.edu> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 6/13/06, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> > Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping >> >> > Is it worth filing bugs against the 200+ packages that need a cleanup? >> >> I'd suggest waiting at least until a license format standard/guideline >> is chosen. > > > Yeah.. Not having those would be a waste of time. When they are > finalized.. I could just send in Patches for all the packages after > making sure that the license lines are true. > >> > And who would formulate a standard Licensing schema for this? [Again is >> > it worth it.. beyond pub arguments?] >> >> I'd argue this should fall under Fedora Packaging Guidelines. >> > > If I can be of help here.. ping me. Otherwise I will just get out of > the way until I can be of use. I'll make sure spot sees (Cc: spot) that we're trying to give him more work... (: -- Rex p.s. Appended is Stephen's semi-exhaustive summary of Core's current use of License: tag. ------------------------------- Ok here is what is out of Fedora development this morning.. hoping that the License tag is accurate. There are about 238 packages that need 'cleanups' in one form or another.. my counting had to be done by hand because style issues. Total Packages: 1155 GPL Only: 504 LGPL Only: 137 MIT/X11: 119 BSD: 58 Artistic/GPL: 42 MIT: 16 GPL/LGPL: 14 Public Domain: 17 Apache Software License: 46 MPL: 4 CPL: 9? GPL combination: 29 LGPL combination: 13 Python: 5 Lots of Style Issues in others: "Artistic or GPL" vs "GPL or Artistic" "LGPL/GPL" vs "GPL/LGPL" vs "GPL,LGPL" vs "LGPL, GPL" "Apache Software License" vs "Apache Software License 2.0" vs "Apache License" "GPL2" vs "GPLv2" vs "GNU GPL version 2" "IBM Public License" vs "IBM Common Public License (CPL) v1.0" vs ... "X License" vs "X11" The rest: 28 distributable 25 Distributable 6 BSDish 5 BSD-style 4 freeware 4 Artistic 3 Freely distributable 3 Free 3 BSD-like 3 BSD style 3 BSD Style 2 The Open Group License 2 Redistributable, with restrictions 2 OSI certified 2 LaTeX Project Public License (http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt) 2 Freely Distributable 2 Exolab Software License 2 CDDL 1 zlib License 1 freely distributable 1 eGenix.com Public License (Python) 1 XFree86 1 XDoclet Open Source Licence 1 X11-style 1 X License 1 W3C IPR 1 Various licenses 1 Various 1 University of Washington Free-Fork License 1 The PHP License v3.01 1 The PHP License 3.0 1 Tanuki Software License (open source) 1 Special (see COPYING.TXT.gz) 1 Sendmail 1 SLIB 1 Public Use License v1.0 1 OpenLDAP 1 Open Group Public License 1 Open Group Pegasus Open Source 1 MIT-style 1 MIT, freely distributable. 1 MIT X11 1 JPackage License 1 GNU FDL 1 GFDL 1 Freeware 1 Free To Use But Restricted (See LICENSE) 1 FDL 1 Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 (EPL) 1 EPL (Eclipse Public License) 1 EPL 1 Distributable (BSD-like) 1 Creative Commons ShareAlike 1 Copyright \uffff 1999-2006 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved. 1 Clarkware License 1 Boost Software License 1 BSD-compatible 1 Apacheish From notting at redhat.com Tue Jun 13 19:48:37 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:48:37 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090606131155la514893lbf2be946ed06bea7@mail.gmail.com> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> <80d7e4090606121450i43d3a3f9uad8fad6a4e604302@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090606131155la514893lbf2be946ed06bea7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060613194837.GB5406@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Stephen John Smoogen (smooge at gmail.com) said: > Is it worth filing bugs against the 200+ packages that need a cleanup? And > who would formulate a standard Licensing schema for this? [Again is it worth > it.. beyond pub arguments?] In this case (and when I had to document all the > licenses on an RHEL-4 system for ISO-9000), it would have been nice to have > a standard scheme: > > GPL version 2 or higher [See /usr/share/LICENSES/GPL_V2] > GPL version 2 ONLY > LGPL version 2 or higher > GPL vers2++/LGPL vers2++ > Artistic > Artistic/GPL vers2++ > MPL version 1.1 > > Again this might just be only good for pub arguments. Perhaps have some sort of license-tracking tool database for this sort of thing? Bill From matt at domsch.com Tue Jun 13 20:25:17 2006 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:25:17 -0500 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060613202517.GA10294@domsch.com> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:37:39PM -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote: > As FC6 planning continues apace, I'd like to make sure that we don't > lose sight of this topic. Is there any way we can push this forward? > It's irritating that we have licenses that are neither free software nor > under OSI-approved licenses. Who is the logical point person for this? Michael, As I see it, there are several ways forward. The question is, to what extent is the OSI interested in reviewing more licenses? The process outlined here: http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php requires a legal analysis from a licensed practitioner of your country (presumably the USA for this purpose). Of the 200ish licenses that require some sort of review, that winds up being a lot of lawyer-hours of work. It's not onorous for a single submission, but for a 3rd party group it would be. Furthermore, it's recommended that the license owners themselves submit to OSI to allow for conversation. http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11493:200604:eolpbjlnpihfepiphpbd So either we could try to get the license owners to do it (preferred), Fedora could do it (maybe), or perhaps OSI could do it themselves. In both of the last cases, the legal review costs would be significant. In the first, we'd have to convince the package owner it's worth their time/effort/money to do so as well (oh, and hurry up so we can make the announcement at FC6 launch...) :-) -Matt From tiemann at redhat.com Tue Jun 13 22:09:48 2006 From: tiemann at redhat.com (Michael Tiemann) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:09:48 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora as Free Software? In-Reply-To: <20060613202517.GA10294@domsch.com> References: <1145657196.4688.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1145664506.13271.2.camel@cutter> <20060422025755.GA23288@domsch.com> <1150141060.3880.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060613202517.GA10294@domsch.com> Message-ID: <1150236589.4068.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:25 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:37:39PM -0400, Michael Tiemann wrote: > > As FC6 planning continues apace, I'd like to make sure that we don't > > lose sight of this topic. Is there any way we can push this forward? > > It's irritating that we have licenses that are neither free software nor > > under OSI-approved licenses. Who is the logical point person for this? > > > Michael, > > As I see it, there are several ways forward. The question is, to what > extent is the OSI interested in reviewing more licenses? The process > outlined here: http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php > requires a legal analysis from a licensed practitioner of your country > (presumably the USA for this purpose). Of the 200ish licenses that > require some sort of review, that winds up being a lot of lawyer-hours > of work. It's not onorous for a single submission, but for a 3rd > party group it would be. > > Furthermore, it's recommended that the license owners themselves > submit to OSI to allow for conversation. > http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11493:200604:eolpbjlnpihfepiphpbd > > So either we could try to get the license owners to do it (preferred), > Fedora could do it (maybe), or perhaps OSI could do it themselves. Or, we could go back to first principles, which was the declaration that Fedora was for free and open source software only, and we'd hone much more closely to our original charter. The OSI's work on license proliferation has found that many one-of licenses have, for all intents and purposes, outlived their usefulness, and in many of those cases, outlived the license author's contact information. We should clean up the mess in both directions--by reviewing licenses that are truly worthy, solving a problem that no existing license solves, and by deprecating software licensed under non-free, non-OSI, or otherwise problematic terms. Just 'cause it was in FC1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 doesn't mean the software was perfected qualified in the first place (because nothing's perfect). M From notting at redhat.com Sat Jun 17 05:39:03 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:39:03 -0400 Subject: [fab] Building communities.... what *are* we doing? Message-ID: <20060617053903.GA19207@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Warning: rambling. So, I sit here in the ivory tower of Red Hat, and I wonder... how are we building the community? *ARE* we building the community? I look at the owners.list for extras packages - there are 201 unique owners. Off the top of my head at a glance, 101 of them are recognizable to me. At this stage, I don't venture *that* much off the fedora development lists, or #fedora-devel, or bugzilla for my stuff. And yet, I can easily identify about half of extras contributors? What does that say about how we're growing the community? What does that say about how we enable others to contribute, if most of the contributors are either Red Hat employees, or long-time enough Fedora & Red Hat users that my foggy brain recognizes them? Perhaps it's better in other projects. But I would be skeptical. Which brings up another point - the fact that I don't *know* whether or not it's better in other projects is part of the problem. Here I sit - I'm a member of the board! I've been at Red Hat for umpteen years! And the projects I know about the contribution status of are... Core & Extras. What message does this send? It doesn't matter if it's completely subcionscious - if I, as a board member, only know these things, it implies that Core and Extras are the flagship projects. That they're the only ones with prestige. That if you're contributing to other projects, or you don't feel you have the skills to contribute to Core and Extras, that you're not as important - you may as well not even contribute to Fedora! And that is wrong. It's unfortunately one of the problems we face. The wonders of the open source community (and on-line communities, in general) is that they are theoretically, at least, open to anyone. However, what happens is that communities, when they are open in this way, become self-selecting. I'm not a sociologist, but it's easy to see. The BSG fans congregate together... the soccer players form a club... the people who hack on evolution grab an IRC channel. People congregate with other people of similar interests, where they can post links to the latest whizbang gadgets, discuss their relevant (shared) politics, or kibitz about the movie they all saw last weekend. Micro communities form, and for those who are coming new to the community, without necessarily the full context of knowledge, skills, or interaction... where is there for them? Hence, we end up selecting from the smallest groups of people - those who already are part of the community, but just haven't had the time in the past; those who are parts of similar communities (such as OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, heck, Slackware) who are migrating into our similar community, or those outside the community who are stubborn enough to fight through our ingrained knowledge to contribute. Heck, even this list is pretty damn self-selecting. Let's look at some of our example projects. Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm going to use Extras as an example. After all, we're touting it as one of our most succesful projects. First, on the Help Wanted page. It lists as required skills (emphasis mine): - RPM packaging - General Linux OS knowledge - Familiarity with Fedora Core as a user, sysadmin, and *developer* ... - Programming skills are helpful but *not required* Contradictions are fun. :) If you go to see 'How to become an Extras contributor', you find an 18-step process. Apparently it's 50% more complicated than controlling addictions. Included in this process are: - 7 *other* documents that are described as should-read, - 2 other things that are listed as useful to review - 2 accounts that are required to be created - One account that's required that isn't listed at all (wiki account) - 3 mailing lists that are required - 1 mailing list that's listed as optional Now, if you're coming in, and want to contribute to Extras, is this an inviting environment? Is it welcoming to those who may feel unsure of themselves, or come from cultures where asking lots of questions is not the norm? Compare it to something like the Ambassadors project, which reads: The Fedora Project is always looking for representatives and participants for upcoming Events. Fedora Ambassadors are are people like you and me, who go to places where other Linux users and potential converts gather and tell them about Fedora ? the project and the distribution. You can be one too. Which one of these is more likely to garner contributors? Moreover, every time someone has a bad experience trying the first steps to contribute, that consists of a lost opportunity. How many potential contributors have gone away because they were intimidated by our process? Because they were flamed, or told to go RTFM? How many potential contributors are out there that we don't even know how to reach? I'd argue that, realistically, this is our most important task. If we do not develop the community, it does not matter how fast we integrate GNOME. If we do not develop the community, it does not matter if we have booths at Linux shows. If we do not develop the community, it does not matter how detailed our packaging is. Because, if we do not continue to grow the community, others will. And we'll lose developer mindshare. We'll lose user mindshare. We'll lose marketing mindshare. (Heck, some would say we've already lost.) For without a vibrant community, we become Yet Another open source distribution, whether it be Stampede, or OpenSolaris. Right now our community-building seems to be one of waiting. We all go about our daily Fedora business, whether it be documentation, coding, admining, or testing. We wait for people to show up and say "I'd like to help! Here's all this stuff I've done." I don't see how this can possibly scale. And if we continue down this path I don't see how we can possibly succeed. I don't have the answers. I don't know how we're going to solve this problem, (although I wonder if firefighters will be involved). But I know we need to. Bill [For some background reading, check out http://flosspols.org/deliverables/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_Findings.pdf It points to one specific segment that isn't represented in our community (only about half the population...)] From mspevack at redhat.com Mon Jun 19 17:21:04 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] 2006-06-20 agenda Message-ID: Here's the agenda for tomorrow's Fedora Project Board meeting: 1. July 4th meeting, need to decide what to do about it. 2. Review action items: * Update from Elliot on version control discussion that has been started. * Update from Elliot on infrastructure. Is Luke Macken working on anything currently? * Did FESCO talk about the sponsorship questions that were raised in our last meeting? Did they make any decisions? What were those decisions? * FUDCon -- Brazil and Silicon Valley. Max needs to get the ball rolling here. * Legacy -- Jesse, did you get what you needed for the time being? Anything else we can do for you right now? * Update from Max on codifying official fedora projects, incubators, etc. 3. New business: * How's the Doc team's schedule looking for plone, wiki, etc. From their June 6th meeting: Schedule (current) 14 June Wednesday -- Plone Show-and-tell - Content TBD End of June -- Wiki usable for outputting XML for CMS June, July -- Work on automating various outputs and inputs * I don't really have any for this meeting, anyone else who's reading these words have some? * How's fc6-test1 looking so far? Get the Board up to speed. * Any other suggestions from our readership??? -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Jun 19 17:33:00 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:33:00 -0400 Subject: [fab] 2006-06-20 agenda In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1150738380.8679.3.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> On Mon, 2006-06-19 at 13:21 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > * Legacy -- Jesse, did you get what you needed for the time being? > Anything else we can do for you right now? Well the go ahead was good. I've been swamped w/ Test1 stuff so I haven't made much progress other than talk to the Legacy folks about where we're headed. We wrote out some planning stuff need to actually talk to folks that can get the parts done. CVS, Build System, etc... I can go to those folks directly w/out needing the Board's assistance. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 sopwith at redhat.com Mon Jun 19 20:22:13 2006 From: sopwith at redhat.com (Elliot Lee) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:22:13 -0400 Subject: [fab] Building communities.... what *are* we doing? In-Reply-To: <20060617053903.GA19207@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20060617053903.GA19207@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Jun 17, 2006, at 01:39, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Warning: rambling. No kidding ;-) I think we just have to realize that each of our capabilities for comprehending this community and project are limited. Even We do need to make an effort to expand our view of the Fedora universe, but in some ways a measure of our success will be to see Fedora projects going on that we know nothing about. So I bear no guilt for not knowing what is going on with Fedora Legacy at this point. We have to delegate in order to be successful. > If you go to see 'How to become an Extras contributor', you find an > 18-step > process. Apparently it's 50% more complicated than controlling > addictions. > Included in this process are: > - 7 *other* documents that are described as should-read, > - 2 other things that are listed as useful to review > - 2 accounts that are required to be created > - One account that's required that isn't listed at all (wiki > account) > - 3 mailing lists that are required > - 1 mailing list that's listed as optional This part bugs me to no end. I think part of the problem is the sometimes-expressed attitude that people need to "earn" the ability to contribute, as if contributing was a prestigious and exclusive action. That's part of the culture that needs to die. We can have quality packages without being total snobs. :) There is an Extras package database project that keeps getting talked about, and the account system needs rewriting as well. Done right, those projects should simplify things a lot. I'm hoping to find someone to take the package DB side of things on... Best, -- Elliot From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Tue Jun 20 22:12:48 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:12:48 -0400 Subject: [fab] 108 Message-ID: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> I forgot to ask in the meeting - I wanted to follow up a point Rahul made on the mailing list about 108. Is 108 considered a rh thing or a fedora thing? Also the code for 108 is that available somewhere or is it a closed-source-ish 'service' that red hat is providing or what? It's a confusing point as to how 108 fits into the fedora world view. -sv From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jun 20 22:12:53 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:12:53 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning Message-ID: <1150841574.13600.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Seth did his duty on this issue back in May (bravo, sirrah!): https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-May/msg00023.html We subsequently dropped this particular thread, but should resurrect it. (Eww, shambling reanimated thread.) I volunteer to write this up into a draft on the wiki... any further thoughts are welcome. Here's one: * FC6 is rapidly approaching. Is the intent that the board will replace one-half the community members at this time, or will the first nomination/election process take place at ~FC7? If we do it at FC6, half the seats will only serve for one release, which seems a bit, er, truncated, while the alternative puts half the seats in positions of Phenomenal Cosmic Power(tm) for three releases. I would rather see a "buyback" of whatever honeymoon period the Board had, and choose the latter option, but that's an issue that needs a quick decision. Awaiting the chopping block, -- 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 Tue Jun 20 22:16:43 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:46:43 +0530 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1150841803.20056.69.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 18:12 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > I forgot to ask in the meeting - I wanted to follow up a point Rahul > made on the mailing list about 108. > > Is 108 considered a rh thing or a fedora thing? Also the code for 108 is > that available somewhere or is it a closed-source-ish 'service' that red > hat is providing or what? > Closed source-ish service (with enough internal flamewars) based on Collabnet that Red Hat provides. Some information http://www.redhat.com/magazine/020jun06/features/108/ > > It's a confusing point as to how 108 fits into the fedora world view. My take is that it doesnt fit into the Fedora world at all though Karsten Wade who is leading this effort said earlier that he wants a open Fedora equivalent. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jun 20 22:18:47 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 03:48:47 +0530 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1150841574.13600.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1150841574.13600.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1150841927.20056.72.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 18:12 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Seth did his duty on this issue back in May (bravo, sirrah!): > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-May/msg00023.html > > We subsequently dropped this particular thread, but should resurrect it. > (Eww, shambling reanimated thread.) I volunteer to write this up into a > draft on the wiki... any further thoughts are welcome. > > Here's one: > > * FC6 is rapidly approaching. Is the intent that the board will replace > one-half the community members at this time, or will the first > nomination/election process take place at ~FC7? If we do it at FC6, > half the seats will only serve for one release, which seems a bit, er, > truncated, while the alternative puts half the seats in positions of > Phenomenal Cosmic Power(tm) for three releases. I would rather see a > "buyback" of whatever honeymoon period the Board had, and choose the > latter option, but that's an issue that needs a quick decision. > > Awaiting the chopping block, Definitely post-FC6, preferably post-FC7. The current board IMO needs to provide a strong path to lead forward. Rahul From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jun 20 23:35:57 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:35:57 -0400 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1150841927.20056.72.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> References: <1150841574.13600.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1150841927.20056.72.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1150846558.13600.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 03:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 18:12 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Seth did his duty on this issue back in May (bravo, sirrah!): > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-May/msg00023.html > > > > We subsequently dropped this particular thread, but should resurrect it. > > (Eww, shambling reanimated thread.) I volunteer to write this up into a > > draft on the wiki... any further thoughts are welcome. > > > > Here's one: > > > > * FC6 is rapidly approaching. Is the intent that the board will replace > > one-half the community members at this time, or will the first > > nomination/election process take place at ~FC7? If we do it at FC6, > > half the seats will only serve for one release, which seems a bit, er, > > truncated, while the alternative puts half the seats in positions of > > Phenomenal Cosmic Power(tm) for three releases. I would rather see a > > "buyback" of whatever honeymoon period the Board had, and choose the > > latter option, but that's an issue that needs a quick decision. > > > > Awaiting the chopping block, > > Definitely post-FC6, preferably post-FC7. The current board IMO needs to > provide a strong path to lead forward. The "post-" is an important distinction. I would word it "within 30 days after," which sets a deadline with enough time for decompression, back-patting, and lessons learned post-release. Longer than that, and it's getting too close to the release of FC(n+1)test1. -- 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 mspevack at redhat.com Wed Jun 21 01:32:46 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:32:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <1150841803.20056.69.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> <1150841803.20056.69.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> Message-ID: I would add this: It's a tool that Red Hat has made available to the world. It's *not* a part of Fedora. If certain people within Fedora use it for things, then so be it. Fedora contributors use many different tools to do their work. But the Fedora Project Board doesn't do any official work on 108. --Max On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 18:12 -0400, seth vidal wrote: >> I forgot to ask in the meeting - I wanted to follow up a point Rahul >> made on the mailing list about 108. >> >> Is 108 considered a rh thing or a fedora thing? Also the code for 108 is >> that available somewhere or is it a closed-source-ish 'service' that red >> hat is providing or what? >> > > Closed source-ish service (with enough internal flamewars) based on > Collabnet that Red Hat provides. > > Some information > > http://www.redhat.com/magazine/020jun06/features/108/ > >> >> It's a confusing point as to how 108 fits into the fedora world view. > > My take is that it doesnt fit into the Fedora world at all though > Karsten Wade who is leading this effort said earlier that he wants a > open Fedora equivalent. > > Rahul > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From nman64 at n-man.com Wed Jun 21 05:09:05 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:09:05 -0500 Subject: [fab] Succession Planning In-Reply-To: <1150846558.13600.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1150841574.13600.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1150841927.20056.72.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> <1150846558.13600.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200606210009.07929.nman64@n-man.com> On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:35, "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > > > > Definitely post-FC6, preferably post-FC7. The current board IMO needs to > > provide a strong path to lead forward. > > The "post-" is an important distinction. I would word it "within 30 > days after," which sets a deadline with enough time for decompression, > back-patting, and lessons learned post-release. Longer than that, and > it's getting too close to the release of FC(n+1)test1. I'm inclined to agree on both points. I think our current board is solid and needs time to work its magic. I say we target 30 days after the release of FC7. We don't need to break out the guillotine just yet. ;-) -- 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 mwebbink at redhat.com Wed Jun 21 12:27:37 2006 From: mwebbink at redhat.com (Mark Webbink) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:27:37 -0400 Subject: [fab] Fedora Logo versus OPL License In-Reply-To: <1148367117.4310.526.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> References: <13dbfe4f0605221703n668bf76fn1e773187764727c7@mail.gmail.com> <1148363506.4310.521.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> <13dbfe4f0605222348p28a8776ftc9b8da77af6b11f1@mail.gmail.com> <1148367117.4310.526.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44993B39.50709@redhat.com> Sorry to be late to this party. I can confirm that Rahul is correct. The FEDORA mark, as well as the Fedora Logo, are trademarks, and those marks are owned by Red Hat. They are to be applied only to the original content and software released by the Fedora Project and not to modified versions of those. The Fedora Trademark Guidelines, found here http://fedora.redhat.com/about/trademarks/guidelines/, apply equally to documentation. Mark Rahul Sundaram wrote: >On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 08:48 +0200, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: > > >>On 5/23/06, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >> >>>You are wrong. The logo or artwork is not licensed under OPL. >>> >>>Rahul >>> >>> >>But since the Fedora Logo is now part of the contents of the wiki. It >>may be considered as OPL ? >> >> >> > >It doesnt work that way. Just because you upload something into the wiki >doesnt mean that it is licensed under OPL. You are free to upload a GPL >licensed artwork such BlueCurve into the wiki for example. > >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 nman64 at n-man.com Wed Jun 21 17:13:20 2006 From: nman64 at n-man.com (Patrick W. Barnes) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:13:20 -0500 Subject: [fab] EULA/Export Concerns Message-ID: <200606211213.30796.nman64@n-man.com> Roozbeh Pournader just posted the following on the fedoraproject.org wiki within his personal namespace. I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. For Roozbeh, this is a bit of a personal issue, since export control in the U.S. technically requires that we not ship Fedora to Iran, where Roozbeh is located. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RoozbehPournader/EULA > I am planning to keep notes about the problems of the Fedora EULA here. I > consider this personal Fedora-related space, and am using this to help keep > information about the problems > [http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/development/i386/e >ula.txt the current EULA] creates, specially by making Fedora non-free > software. > > The main issues are: > * Fedora is not free software > * Fedora is not open source software > * Fedora violates the GNU General Public License > * EULAs are bad > > Random posts from my blog: > * http://www.advogato.org/person/roozbeh/diary.html?start=8 > * http://www.advogato.org/person/roozbeh/diary.html?start=9 > > == Fedora is not free software == > > == Fedora is not open source == > > == Fedora violates GPL == > > == EULAs are bad == Further reference: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Export IANAL... I don't see merit in all of Roozbeh's concerns, but they're worth looking into for the sake of Doing the Right Thing. -- 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 mwebbink at redhat.com Wed Jun 21 19:04:28 2006 From: mwebbink at redhat.com (Mark Webbink) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:04:28 -0400 Subject: [fab] EULA/Export Concerns In-Reply-To: <200606211213.30796.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606211213.30796.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <4499983C.4010809@redhat.com> Roozbeh is certainly welcome to his opinions, but having been through this discussion many times before, this is a non-issue. Fedora is U.S.-based, and Red Hat, as its distributors, has an obligation to abide by U.S. law regardless of what the GPL may say. That law forbids the export of Fedora to certain countries and individuals. Anyone who knowingly distributes or permits the distribution of Fedora in violation of U.S. export control laws is subject to substantial fines and criminal conviction. This is not dissimilar to the laws in other countries that regulate the import and export of goods, including computer software, and Fedora is obligated to respect all of those. The fact that these laws exist does not override the intent of the licensor, i.e., that Fedora is free software, nor does it in my legal opinion violate the GPL (understanding that others, including the FSF, may disagree with me on this point). However, the GPL does not relieve anyone from complying with the national laws in those countries within which they reside. Mark Patrick W. Barnes wrote: >Roozbeh Pournader just posted the following on the fedoraproject.org wiki >within his personal namespace. I wanted to bring this to everyone's >attention. For Roozbeh, this is a bit of a personal issue, since export >control in the U.S. technically requires that we not ship Fedora to Iran, >where Roozbeh is located. > >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RoozbehPournader/EULA > > > >>I am planning to keep notes about the problems of the Fedora EULA here. I >>consider this personal Fedora-related space, and am using this to help keep >>information about the problems >>[http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/development/i386/e >>ula.txt the current EULA] creates, specially by making Fedora non-free >>software. >> >>The main issues are: >> * Fedora is not free software >> * Fedora is not open source software >> * Fedora violates the GNU General Public License >> * EULAs are bad >> >>Random posts from my blog: >> * http://www.advogato.org/person/roozbeh/diary.html?start=8 >> * http://www.advogato.org/person/roozbeh/diary.html?start=9 >> >>== Fedora is not free software == >> >>== Fedora is not open source == >> >>== Fedora violates GPL == >> >>== EULAs are bad == >> >> > >Further reference: > >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Export > >IANAL... > >I don't see merit in all of Roozbeh's concerns, but they're worth looking into >for the sake of Doing the Right Thing. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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 gdk at redhat.com Wed Jun 21 19:08:40 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:08:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] EULA/Export Concerns In-Reply-To: <4499983C.4010809@redhat.com> References: <200606211213.30796.nman64@n-man.com> <4499983C.4010809@redhat.com> Message-ID: Our community must handle dissent respectfully, while also recognizing the restrictions that we are forced to live with. I understand and sympathize with Roozbeh. And yet, the only *real* restriction here is that we may not *directly* distribute Fedora into embargoed destinations -- everyone knowing perfectly well that no *actual* restriction can ever be implemented. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Mark Webbink wrote: > Roozbeh is certainly welcome to his opinions, but having been through > this discussion many times before, this is a non-issue. Fedora is > U.S.-based, and Red Hat, as its distributors, has an obligation to abide > by U.S. law regardless of what the GPL may say. That law forbids the > export of Fedora to certain countries and individuals. Anyone who > knowingly distributes or permits the distribution of Fedora in violation > of U.S. export control laws is subject to substantial fines and criminal > conviction. This is not dissimilar to the laws in other countries that > regulate the import and export of goods, including computer software, > and Fedora is obligated to respect all of those. The fact that these > laws exist does not override the intent of the licensor, i.e., that > Fedora is free software, nor does it in my legal opinion violate the GPL > (understanding that others, including the FSF, may disagree with me on > this point). However, the GPL does not relieve anyone from complying > with the national laws in those countries within which they reside. > > Mark > > Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > > >Roozbeh Pournader just posted the following on the fedoraproject.org wiki > >within his personal namespace. I wanted to bring this to everyone's > >attention. For Roozbeh, this is a bit of a personal issue, since export > >control in the U.S. technically requires that we not ship Fedora to Iran, > >where Roozbeh is located. > > > >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RoozbehPournader/EULA > > > > > > > >>I am planning to keep notes about the problems of the Fedora EULA here. I > >>consider this personal Fedora-related space, and am using this to help keep > >>information about the problems > >>[http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/development/i386/e > >>ula.txt the current EULA] creates, specially by making Fedora non-free > >>software. > >> > >>The main issues are: > >> * Fedora is not free software > >> * Fedora is not open source software > >> * Fedora violates the GNU General Public License > >> * EULAs are bad > >> > >>Random posts from my blog: > >> * http://www.advogato.org/person/roozbeh/diary.html?start=8 > >> * http://www.advogato.org/person/roozbeh/diary.html?start=9 > >> > >>== Fedora is not free software == > >> > >>== Fedora is not open source == > >> > >>== Fedora violates GPL == > >> > >>== EULAs are bad == > >> > >> > > > >Further reference: > > > >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA > >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Export > > > >IANAL... > > > >I don't see merit in all of Roozbeh's concerns, but they're worth looking into > >for the sake of Doing the Right Thing. > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >fedora-advisory-board mailing list > >fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > >http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > > > > > From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Wed Jun 21 19:23:59 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:23:59 -0400 Subject: [fab] EULA/Export Concerns In-Reply-To: <4499983C.4010809@redhat.com> References: <200606211213.30796.nman64@n-man.com> <4499983C.4010809@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1150917839.11582.76.camel@cutter> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 15:04 -0400, Mark Webbink wrote: > Roozbeh is certainly welcome to his opinions, but having been through > this discussion many times before, this is a non-issue. Fedora is > U.S.-based, and Red Hat, as its distributors, has an obligation to > abide by U.S. law regardless of what the GPL may say. That law > forbids the export of Fedora to certain countries and individuals. > Anyone who knowingly distributes or permits the distribution of Fedora > in violation of U.S. export control laws is subject to substantial > fines and criminal conviction. This is not dissimilar to the laws in > other countries that regulate the import and export of goods, > including computer software, and Fedora is obligated to respect all of > those. The fact that these laws exist does not override the intent of > the licensor, i.e., that Fedora is free software, nor does it in my > legal opinion violate the GPL (understanding that others, including > the FSF, may disagree with me on this point). However, the GPL does > not relieve anyone from complying with the national laws in those > countries within which they reside. Has anyone told Roozbeh just this? Any problem with my forwarding this mail to him? -sv From mspevack at redhat.com Wed Jun 21 19:25:04 2006 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:25:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [fab] EULA/Export Concerns In-Reply-To: <1150917839.11582.76.camel@cutter> References: <200606211213.30796.nman64@n-man.com> <4499983C.4010809@redhat.com> <1150917839.11582.76.camel@cutter> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, seth vidal wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 15:04 -0400, Mark Webbink wrote: >> Roozbeh is certainly welcome to his opinions, but having been through >> this discussion many times before, this is a non-issue. Fedora is >> U.S.-based, and Red Hat, as its distributors, has an obligation to >> abide by U.S. law regardless of what the GPL may say. That law >> forbids the export of Fedora to certain countries and individuals. >> Anyone who knowingly distributes or permits the distribution of Fedora >> in violation of U.S. export control laws is subject to substantial >> fines and criminal conviction. This is not dissimilar to the laws in >> other countries that regulate the import and export of goods, >> including computer software, and Fedora is obligated to respect all of >> those. The fact that these laws exist does not override the intent of >> the licensor, i.e., that Fedora is free software, nor does it in my >> legal opinion violate the GPL (understanding that others, including >> the FSF, may disagree with me on this point). However, the GPL does >> not relieve anyone from complying with the national laws in those >> countries within which they reside. > > Has anyone told Roozbeh just this? > > Any problem with my forwarding this mail to him? Open archives on this list. I'll send him a note pointing him to the entire thread, so that he can see that we discussed it. --Max -- Max Spevack + http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/ + gpg key -- http://people.redhat.com/mspevack/mspevack.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From smooge at gmail.com Wed Jun 21 19:33:33 2006 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:33:33 -0600 Subject: [fab] EULA/Export Concerns In-Reply-To: <1150917839.11582.76.camel@cutter> References: <200606211213.30796.nman64@n-man.com> <4499983C.4010809@redhat.com> <1150917839.11582.76.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <80d7e4090606211233i7a39c8c8o5ec8e949597d4faa@mail.gmail.com> On 6/21/06, seth vidal wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 15:04 -0400, Mark Webbink wrote: > > Roozbeh is certainly welcome to his opinions, but having been through > > this discussion many times before, this is a non-issue. Fedora is > > U.S.-based, and Red Hat, as its distributors, has an obligation to > > abide by U.S. law regardless of what the GPL may say. That law > > forbids the export of Fedora to certain countries and individuals. > > Anyone who knowingly distributes or permits the distribution of Fedora > > in violation of U.S. export control laws is subject to substantial > > fines and criminal conviction. This is not dissimilar to the laws in > > other countries that regulate the import and export of goods, > > including computer software, and Fedora is obligated to respect all of > > those. The fact that these laws exist does not override the intent of > > the licensor, i.e., that Fedora is free software, nor does it in my > > legal opinion violate the GPL (understanding that others, including > > the FSF, may disagree with me on this point). However, the GPL does > > not relieve anyone from complying with the national laws in those > > countries within which they reside. > > Has anyone told Roozbeh just this? > > Any problem with my forwarding this mail to him? > > I don't think there would be a problem, but having gone through his Blog on how Google etc are all wrong for not allowing exports, money, etc to Iran because of following US law.. I do not think it will have any effect. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator From sopwith at redhat.com Wed Jun 21 19:34:18 2006 From: sopwith at redhat.com (Elliot Lee) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:34:18 -0400 Subject: [fab] EULA/Export Concerns In-Reply-To: <4499983C.4010809@redhat.com> References: <200606211213.30796.nman64@n-man.com> <4499983C.4010809@redhat.com> Message-ID: <773A4761-60CF-40A6-8BB7-FBB57B8507B4@redhat.com> To put it another way: By Roozbeh's definition of free software as per the GPL, it is impossible to make any software at all free, because those export restrictions will exist no matter what license the software is under. IANAL, but neither is Roozbeh :) -- Elliot From deisenst at gtw.net Thu Jun 22 19:00:15 2006 From: deisenst at gtw.net (David Eisenstein) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:00:15 -0500 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> Message-ID: <449AE8BF.9010300@gtw.net> Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:32, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > >>Comments: >> >>1. I continue to assert that there are only two meaningful kinds of >>project: incubators/SIGs/whatever, and full-fledged projects. Why >>distinguish between "ideas" and "incubator projects"? Why does someone >>need "a plan of action" to "graduate" to incubator status? What's wrong >>with having 2000 incubator projects, 1500 of which overlap? > > > A summary and a plan of action really aren't much to ask for, and the biggest > reason for doing so is to avoid having to create and maintain 2000 wiki pages > and 2000 new mailing lists that might not do anything. We've had a number of > people throw out an idea, give it no further thought and start requesting > mailing lists and assorted other resources or privileges, and that can put a > strain on the people who can provide those things. If someone can't > formulate a basic summary and plan, why should the rest of us put forth the > time and effort to give them resources? If the Fedora Infrastructure team is becoming strained by having to provide these things to a lot of proposed projects that may never fly, then it sounds to me like the infrastructure team needs to grow in numbers and perhaps also in resources -- to have more folks on it who can provide such things, or that Fedora Infrastructure needs more machines or something to provide "scratch space" on. Perhaps Fedora Project can host their own mailing lists and Fedora people can help maintain them? As for maintaining 2,000 wiki pages -- well, we *all* who are part of the Fedora Project pitch in on the maintenance of those... especially folks like you and Rahul. Maybe we need to create a small team who can monitor these things a bit and put "dead" pages up into some kind of wiki "attic"? I am a firm believer in the process of foment, and it best happens when dampers are removed. It can be a bit chaotic, and sure, there will be duds, but it's the process and the communications that are important here, not just the end product. The process includes encouragement, praise, open-mindedness, and tolerance for things that may not work out splendidly. On the other hand, you have a point, Patrick. Having some kind of summary and objectives available before allocating serious resources makes sense. It doesn't have to stop there, though -- maybe this is another instance of where good mentoring can come in. If someone has an idea, but doesn't know how to make a plan or a summary, well I am sure that there are dozens of eager folks on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mentors who can help folks come up with what is needed to get a new idea far enough for resources and time to be allocated. Regards, David Eisenstein From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Jun 22 20:27:44 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:57:44 +0530 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <449AE8BF.9010300@gtw.net> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> <449AE8BF.9010300@gtw.net> Message-ID: <1151008064.20056.232.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 14:00 -0500, David Eisenstein wrote: > Patrick W. Barnes wrote: > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:32, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > >>Comments: > >> > >>1. I continue to assert that there are only two meaningful kinds of > >>project: incubators/SIGs/whatever, and full-fledged projects. Why > >>distinguish between "ideas" and "incubator projects"? Why does someone > >>need "a plan of action" to "graduate" to incubator status? What's wrong > >>with having 2000 incubator projects, 1500 of which overlap? > > > > > > A summary and a plan of action really aren't much to ask for, and the biggest > > reason for doing so is to avoid having to create and maintain 2000 wiki pages > > and 2000 new mailing lists that might not do anything. We've had a number of > > people throw out an idea, give it no further thought and start requesting > > mailing lists and assorted other resources or privileges, and that can put a > > strain on the people who can provide those things. If someone can't > > formulate a basic summary and plan, why should the rest of us put forth the > > time and effort to give them resources? > > If the Fedora Infrastructure team is becoming strained by having to provide > these things to a lot of proposed projects that may never fly, then it > sounds to me like the infrastructure team needs to grow in numbers and > perhaps also in resources -- to have more folks on it who can provide such > things, or that Fedora Infrastructure needs more machines or something to > provide "scratch space" on. Perhaps Fedora Project can host their own > mailing lists and Fedora people can help maintain them? What exactly is preventing Fedora people (even outside of Red Hat)from joining the infrastructure team or helping out in mailing list administration now? > As for maintaining > 2,000 wiki pages -- well, we *all* who are part of the Fedora Project pitch > in on the maintenance of those... especially folks like you and Rahul. > Maybe we need to create a small team who can monitor these things a bit and > put "dead" pages up into some kind of wiki "attic"? Better yet, tell us which pages need work and we will do that but the point being made is that if there are multiple projects being spawned that duplicate from our each other, then we are losing contributors momentum instead of gaining it. More machines wont fix it. Good guidelines would. > > I am a firm believer in the process of foment, and it best happens > when dampers are removed. It can be a bit chaotic, and sure, there will be > duds, but it's the process and the communications that are important here, > not just the end product. The process includes encouragement, praise, > open-mindedness, and tolerance for things that may not work out splendidly. We can have chaos. Thats not a huge issue as long as new users and contributors have a way to differentiate between new experimental projects vs the established ones. The guidelines shouldnt be bureaucratic and barrier to entry should be kept low and that's a balance that we can work out through peer review. > > On the other hand, you have a point, Patrick. Having some kind of summary > and objectives available before allocating serious resources makes sense. > It doesn't have to stop there, though -- maybe this is another instance of > where good mentoring can come in. If someone has an idea, but doesn't know > how to make a plan or a summary, well I am sure that there are dozens of > eager folks on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mentors who can help folks come > up with what is needed to get a new idea far enough for resources and time > to be allocated. Rahul From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Thu Jun 22 20:36:33 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:36:33 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1151008064.20056.232.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> <449AE8BF.9010300@gtw.net> <1151008064.20056.232.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1151008593.18335.28.camel@cutter> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 01:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > What exactly is preventing Fedora people (even outside of Red Hat)from > joining the infrastructure team or helping out in mailing list > administration now? > The infrastructure team doesn't handle mailing lists. All mailing lists have to go through red hat IS to be created. -sv From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Jun 22 20:42:05 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:12:05 +0530 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1151008593.18335.28.camel@cutter> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> <449AE8BF.9010300@gtw.net> <1151008064.20056.232.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> <1151008593.18335.28.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1151008925.20056.245.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 16:36 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 01:57 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > What exactly is preventing Fedora people (even outside of Red Hat)from > > joining the infrastructure team or helping out in mailing list > > administration now? > > > > The infrastructure team doesn't handle mailing lists. > > > All mailing lists have to go through red hat IS to be created. > > -sv I dont think having external people directly create mailing lists in redhat.com would be easy to manage and I was referring to day to day administration of it but new mailing lists aren't created that often related to Fedora to be a big bottle neck in having Red Hat IS team manage it, does it? Would moving mailing lists to fedoraproject.org be helpful? Rahul From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Fri Jun 23 16:41:56 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:41:56 -0400 Subject: [fab] New project formation is out of control In-Reply-To: <1151008925.20056.245.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> References: <200606051822.23114.nman64@n-man.com> <200606071655.28469.nman64@n-man.com> <449AE8BF.9010300@gtw.net> <1151008064.20056.232.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> <1151008593.18335.28.camel@cutter> <1151008925.20056.245.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1151080916.22649.6.camel@cutter> On Fri, 2006-06-23 at 02:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I dont think having external people directly create mailing lists in > redhat.com would be easy to manage and I was referring to day to day > administration of it but new mailing lists aren't created that often > related to Fedora to be a big bottle neck in having Red Hat IS team > manage it, does it? Would moving mailing lists to fedoraproject.org be > helpful? > I wasn't suggesting it, either. I was just explaining what it was about the current list creation process that is time consuming. -sv From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Jun 26 21:35:38 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 03:05:38 +0530 Subject: [fab] Build and include NTFS module Message-ID: <1151357738.20056.444.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> Hi 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? Unlike our standing on say mp3 patents, the alleged NTFS related ones are not well recognized and none of the other distributions have refrained from using NTFS. I have had atleast one offlist request to list the relevant patents in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems so that the community can keep a tab on that and request for inclusion when it expires (assuming we decide to continue not including it now) The ability of Fedora to read NTFS partitions would pave way for automatically migrating data (mails, browser settings etc) even during installation and make the process much more easier for new users. Interoperability has various other well known advantages. I would like to see this happen. If no, why not? Rahul From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Jun 26 22:52:40 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:52:40 -0400 Subject: [fab] Build and include NTFS module In-Reply-To: <1151357738.20056.444.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> References: <1151357738.20056.444.camel@sundaram.pnq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1151362360.23849.1.camel@ender> 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? -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Jun 27 14:51:52 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:51:52 +0200 Subject: [fab] Building communities.... what *are* we doing? In-Reply-To: <20060617053903.GA19207@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20060617053903.GA19207@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060627165152.1540144d.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Late reply. Doesn't matter much, probably, since this topic has not seen more than a single reply so far anyway. I've read this mail a first time some days ago. Now I've read it once more, following a link from somewhere else. It is the type of message which creates a fascinating emptiness in my brain. It makes me ask myself: "So what? He [Bill] doesn't have the answers, but does he raise any clear questions?" I've thought about this on my bicycle, at 34 degrees Celsius. I don't give answers, because I still have only a fuzzy picture in my head. Hence I only throw in some comments. Since the Fedora Project had been announced and merged officially with the fedora.us people, I've seen repeated attempts at trying to make Fedora Extras grow faster, removing "artificial hurdles", being less selective about _who_ may contribute and _what_ may be contributed. I've seen blanket approvals of new contributors, usually lazy attempts at trying to fill the boat more quickly, making the existing "sponsors" wonder about their responsibilities and whether maybe they are taking their role too serious. Usually, this created more problems than it helped. Suddenly, contributors, who didn't have any sponsors assigned to themselves, showed up in need of hand-holding (some more, some less). At that point it gave the impression that we had reached a critical mass for a first time, since existing contributors needed to jump in and help out. And of course, the more help is needed inside FE, the more contributors are occupied with trying to help each-other (and keep the FE repositories in good shape) instead of being at the front door, where new contributors are waiting to enter. On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:39:03 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Let's look at some of our example projects. Don't take this the wrong way, > but I'm going to use Extras as an example. After all, we're touting it > as one of our most successful projects. > > First, on the Help Wanted page. It lists as required skills (emphasis mine): > > - RPM packaging > - General Linux OS knowledge > - Familiarity with Fedora Core as a user, sysadmin, and *developer* > ... > - Programming skills are helpful but *not required* > > Contradictions are fun. :) Even more funny (to me) is that I've found myself unable to quickly locate the page you refer to. Browsing the pages multiple times I arrive here: http://fedora.redhat.com/Contribute/ -> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors With quite some more time spent browsing the (IMO too many pages), I finally found a reference in the FAQ: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ -> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HelpWanted One thing that bugs me when discovering this, is that a project instance like FESCO has not been involved in this section, which covers _requirements for Fedora Extras contributors_. Hello? IMO, this asks for even more restrictive access to public documentation pages like this as it could be _this_ page where potential contributors stop reading, because they believe they are not competent enough. We do have the possibility to create _links_ between pages. Hence it is beyond my comprehension why existing pages from Fedora Extras have not been linked. Surely documentation writers should not take over the recruiting for Fedora Extras. This is a case of over-ambitious filling of web pages with superfluous content. Excuse me. Less is more in this case. > If you go to see 'How to become an Extras contributor', you find an 18-step > process. Apparently it's 50% more complicated than controlling addictions. Would you mind going back in time to learn (or to imagine) what the process had looked like before this new step-by-step process has been created? Input and experience has lead to this process. I'm all for a tree-like Wiki structure, where _interested_ people can start at the top and climb down the tree the more they show interest in details about packaging guidelines and so on. Unfortunately, a good percentage of the existing contributors (and potential contributors) ask for such details. You see? We have those, who complain about the brevity of a Quick-Start guide, and those, who find that 18 small (!) steps are too much. > Included in this process are: > - 7 *other* documents that are described as should-read, > - 2 other things that are listed as useful to review > - 2 accounts that are required to be created > - One account that's required that isn't listed at all (wiki account) > - 3 mailing lists that are required > - 1 mailing list that's listed as optional Do you see any movement that the number of mailing-lists gets reduced? I don't. Instead, lists like fedora-devel-list and fedora-maintainers compete with each-other. To get announcements for test updates for _stable_ releases, Joe User must subscribe to a list about Test Releases. Further, I fail to see how it would ever be possible to contribute without staying in contact with the others at Fedora Extras through at least one mailing-list. So, what's wrong about highlighting a small selection of relevant mailing-lists? Nothing. You could point them to the full list of mailing-lists, and I assure, many readers would be turned off immediately. As a Fedora User _or_ Contributor, not only am I asked to create an account at bugzilla.redhat.com, there is an increasing trend among packagers that accounts at many upstream project web sites are needed to submit bug reports there instead. Requirements increase everywhere inside the Fedora Project. On top of that, a new ticketing system has been created, but not communicated to the various sub-projects. We should improve efficiency of communication inside the project, because that is where you lose contributors. > Now, if you're coming in, and want to contribute to Extras, is this an inviting > environment? Is it welcoming to those who may feel unsure of themselves, or > come from cultures where asking lots of questions is not the norm? > > Compare it to something like the Ambassadors project, which reads: > > The Fedora Project is always looking for representatives and participants for > upcoming Events. Fedora Ambassadors are are people like you and me, who go to > places where other Linux users and potential converts gather and tell them > about Fedora ? the project and the distribution. You can be one too. > > Which one of these is more likely to garner contributors? Apples and oranges. A month ago on fedora-list-de we have had somebody who disagreed strongly with the requirements for Fedora Ambassadors. With a bit of fantasy, somebody can come up with a similarly small paragraph on the top FE Wiki page. Make it read like marketing. It won't get rid of the actual requirements for anybody, who wants to contribute and maintain packages. We cannot lie and hide the fact that a packager must know how to use cvs and various other tools. You can make it much more easy to sign up, "One-Click-Access". And then? Have you heard some contributors asking about a more detailed Welcome Mail? How short would you want to keep such a mail without linking to the increasingly complex Wiki? > Moreover, every time someone has a bad experience trying the first steps > to contribute, that consists of a lost opportunity. How many potential > contributors have gone away because they were intimidated by our process? How many existing contributors have dropped off because they found out that maintaining packages painstakingly requires more efforts than expected? > Because they were flamed, or told to go RTFM? How many potential contributors > are out there that we don't even know how to reach? How many existing contributors don't ask because they would find it embarrassing? How many, on the contrary, are happy about learning something new every day and use the opportunity to ask their sponsors? Communication is vital. Showing interest is vital. Mind you, this is about volunteers. Either there is interest or not. If you want more half-hearted contributions, reconsider opening up the "Infamous Dumping Ground for Poorly Maintained Packages"(TM). And no, I'm not in a bad mood. ;) From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jun 27 15:10:40 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:40:40 +0530 Subject: [fab] Building communities.... what *are* we doing? In-Reply-To: <20060627165152.1540144d.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20060617053903.GA19207@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20060627165152.1540144d.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <44A14A70.6000005@fedoraproject.org> Michael Schwendt wrote: > >Even more funny (to me) is that I've found myself unable to quickly locate >the page you refer to. Browsing the pages multiple times I arrive here: > > http://fedora.redhat.com/Contribute/ > -> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors > >With quite some more time spent browsing the (IMO too many pages), I >finally found a reference in the FAQ: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ > -> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HelpWanted > >One thing that bugs me when discovering this, is that a project instance >like FESCO has not been involved in this section, which covers >_requirements for Fedora Extras contributors_. Hello > > Might as well as fix that now. >IMO, this asks for even more restrictive access to public documentation >pages like this as it could be _this_ page where potential contributors >stop reading, because they believe they are not competent enough. > >We do have the possibility to create _links_ between pages. Hence it is >beyond my comprehension why existing pages from Fedora Extras have not >been linked. Surely documentation writers should not take over the >recruiting for Fedora Extras. This is a case of over-ambitious filling >of web pages with superfluous content. Excuse me. Less is more in this >case. > > It does link to the Extras and PackagingGuidelines pages. -- Rahul From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jun 27 17:14:40 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:14:40 -0700 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 18:12 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > I forgot to ask in the meeting - I wanted to follow up a point Rahul > made on the mailing list about 108. Sorry, busy with 108 and haven't been in this folder for a week+ obviously. :) > Is 108 considered a rh thing or a fedora thing? Also the code for 108 is > that available somewhere or is it a closed-source-ish 'service' that red > hat is providing or what? It is a Red Hat thing, with most of it running as a hosted application. We are hacking stuff that sits on top of it, and our bits are or will be open source. > It's a confusing point as to how 108 fits into the fedora world view. RHEL is to Fedora as 108 is to open source content and communities. Think of the 108 work like bootstrapping a distro from an existing distro. For example, the OLPC version of Fedora - a carefully chosen set of applications for a specific purpose. 108 is trying to pull together voices from Red Hat, FLOSS communities, partners, and customers. In most cases, these voices (blogs, mailing list posts, social networking metadata, etc.) already exist. Our focus has been therefore on tools that enable editors (active contributors of content) to easily identify content that is useful for 108. For example: http://del.icio.us/108 http://del.icio.us/quaid/108 ... Another purpose that 108 provides is near instant project and collaboration space for Red Hat partners, customers, employees, and FLOSS communities. For example, the new AMQP project is being collaborated on through 108: http://www.redhat.com/solutions/specifications/amqp/ They just haven't opened up amqp.108 for business yet. Clear as mud yet? - 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 rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Jun 27 17:28:14 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:28:14 -0500 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <44A16AAE.90503@math.unl.edu> Karsten Wade wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 18:12 -0400, seth vidal wrote: >> It's a confusing point as to how 108 fits into the fedora world view. > > ... 108 provides is near instant project and > collaboration space for Red Hat partners, customers, employees, and > FLOSS communities. One problem we've been trying to tackle is providing infrastructure(*) for Fedora (sub)Projects. So, is 108 appropriate for this? (*) project space, mailing lists, etc... -- Rex From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jun 27 17:33:51 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:33:51 -0400 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <44A16AAE.90503@math.unl.edu> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> <44A16AAE.90503@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1151429631.13704.15.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 12:28 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > One problem we've been trying to tackle is providing > infrastructure(*) > for Fedora (sub)Projects. So, is 108 appropriate for this? > > (*) project space, mailing lists, etc... The problem currently is that 108 is comprised of some closed source bits. From a Fedora Project standpoint thats a non-starter. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Tue Jun 27 17:40:45 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:40:45 -0400 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <1151429631.13704.15.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> <44A16AAE.90503@math.unl.edu> <1151429631.13704.15.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1151430046.25100.39.camel@cutter> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:33 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 12:28 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > One problem we've been trying to tackle is providing > > infrastructure(*) > > for Fedora (sub)Projects. So, is 108 appropriate for this? > > > > (*) project space, mailing lists, etc... > > The problem currently is that 108 is comprised of some closed source > bits. From a Fedora Project standpoint thats a non-starter. > So when Karsten said it will be open-sourced he meant "not opensourced"? :) -sv From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jun 27 17:41:50 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:41:50 -0400 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <1151430046.25100.39.camel@cutter> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> <44A16AAE.90503@math.unl.edu> <1151429631.13704.15.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> <1151430046.25100.39.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1151430110.13704.17.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:40 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > So when Karsten said it will be open-sourced he meant "not > opensourced"? :) He said the bits they add on top of the devnation bits will be open sourced. He did not say the devnation bits themselves will be. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Jun 27 17:41:07 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:41:07 -0500 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <1151429631.13704.15.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> <44A16AAE.90503@math.unl.edu> <1151429631.13704.15.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <44A16DB3.4080105@math.unl.edu> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 12:28 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >> One problem we've been trying to tackle is providing >> infrastructure(*) >> for Fedora (sub)Projects. So, is 108 appropriate for this? >> >> (*) project space, mailing lists, etc... > > The problem currently is that 108 is comprised of some closed source > bits. From a Fedora Project standpoint thats a non-starter. The pragmatist in me is getting frustrated, because that means nothing will get done, at least not without a lot more time/effort re-inventing an opensource wheel. ): -- Rex From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jun 29 13:47:43 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:47:43 -0700 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <44A16DB3.4080105@math.unl.edu> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> <44A16AAE.90503@math.unl.edu> <1151429631.13704.15.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> <44A16DB3.4080105@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1151588863.2840.47.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 12:41 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > The problem currently is that 108 is comprised of some closed source > > bits. From a Fedora Project standpoint thats a non-starter. > > The pragmatist in me is getting frustrated, because that means nothing > will get done, at least not without a lot more time/effort re-inventing > an opensource wheel. ): Which is actually a fair assessment of how we got to the position of running 108 on the platform it runs on. Pragmatic time to market issues, the kind which should not affect Fedora. Today I am sending an email/proposal to Fedora Infrastructure in order to kick off our open source wheel. All of the pieces are there -- we can grab from what exists and expand it, or stitch together components. How quickly we do it depends on resource allocation. FWIW, if we can get some momentum, there are a whole group of developers in Red Hat who spoke up against the closed platform and therefore have a chance to put their actions where their mouths are. In addition, with that same momentum showing, I am 100% positive that I can influence real resources to shake loose from Red Hat to work on this. In order to make _that_ happen, we need to show real leadership and momentum, which is actually far easier than it sounds. :) - 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 Thu Jun 29 13:51:20 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:51:20 -0700 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <1151430110.13704.17.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> <44A16AAE.90503@math.unl.edu> <1151429631.13704.15.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> <1151430046.25100.39.camel@cutter> <1151430110.13704.17.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1151589080.2840.52.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:41 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:40 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > So when Karsten said it will be open-sourced he meant "not > > opensourced"? :) > > He said the bits they add on top of the devnation bits will be open > sourced. He did not say the devnation bits themselves will be. And when Jesse said "devnation" he meant "108". :-) Yeah, wherever we cannot easily get a feature working on the base platform, we are working on hacks outside of the base platform. For example, an internal programmer (Steve 'ashcrow' Milner) wrote an RSS bundling tool to our spec, which is being worked on at general-tsos-rss.108.redhat.com. It will be released under the GPL. The idea is simple here -- we will run the RSS service for bundling feeds for 108, and if any developers find it useful and want to extend it, they can, and we all benefit. At the same time, we'll be working on further extensions in the community. - Karsten, reinventing the wheel one spoke at a time -- 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 rdieter at math.unl.edu Fri Jun 30 01:34:03 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:34:03 -0500 Subject: [fab] 108 In-Reply-To: <1151588863.2840.47.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1150841568.9213.38.camel@cutter> <1151428480.2489.411.camel@erato.phig.org> <44A16AAE.90503@math.unl.edu> <1151429631.13704.15.camel@dhcp83-49.boston.redhat.com> <44A16DB3.4080105@math.unl.edu> <1151588863.2840.47.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <44A47F8B.2000803@math.unl.edu> Karsten Wade wrote: > Today I am sending an email/proposal to Fedora Infrastructure in order > to kick off our open source wheel. > > All of the pieces are there -- we can grab from what exists and expand > it, or stitch together components. How quickly we do it depends on > resource allocation. FWIW, if we can get some momentum, there are a > whole group of developers in Red Hat who spoke up against the closed > platform and therefore have a chance to put their actions where their > mouths are. In addition, with that same momentum showing, I am 100% > positive that I can influence real resources to shake loose from Red > Hat to work on this. > > In order to make _that_ happen, we need to show real leadership and > momentum, which is actually far easier than it sounds. :) Karsten, thanks (again) for your efforts. If there's anything the board can do to facilitate things, don't hesitate to ask. -- Rex From wwoods at redhat.com Fri Jun 30 21:32:30 2006 From: wwoods at redhat.com (Will Woods) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:32:30 -0400 Subject: [fab] Proposed Project: Fedora Testing Message-ID: <1151703150.31351.0.camel@metroid.rdu.redhat.com> Hello, Fedora Board! 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. -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 Fri Jun 30 23:21:25 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:51:25 +0530 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: <44A5B1F5.9070200@fedoraproject.org> Will Woods wrote: >Hello, Fedora Board! > >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. > > 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. This is one of the reasons if the test suite can connect to other machines outside of Red Hat and provide the results. Variation in hardware while testing is good and there might be hardware specific issues which Red Hat lab wouldnt be test all by itself. Looks like we can't do that yet. Another thing is the ability for interested testers to download the test suite and run the tests locally and provide the results back which is indeed possible now as I learned from our previous discussion. 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. 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. The above testing page mentions a inclusion of a FAQ. I am sure we could ship - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ. I even suggested this a while back in http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2006-January/msg00135.html. Also when this discussion is finalised send the above testing suite roadmap to the fedora-announce list. Thanks. Rahul