From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 1 17:32:55 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:32:55 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board IRC meeting 1800 UTC 2008-07-08 Message-ID: <1214933575.11053.50.camel@victoria> ?The Board is holding its monthly public meeting on Tuesday, 08 July 2008, at 1800 UTC on IRC Freenode. The public is invited to do the following: * Join #fedora-board-meeting to see the Board's conversation. This channel is read-only for non-Board members. * Join #fedora-board-public to discuss topics and post questions. This channel is read/write for everyone. The moderator will direct questions from the #fedora-board-public channel to the Board members at #fedora-board-meeting. This should limit confusion and make sure our logs are useful to everyone. ?The Board has set aside one meeting of each month as a public "town hall" style meeting. We are hoping to hold an audio-based meeting at some point in the near future using some of the new resources being developed by the Infrastructure team. More news on this will be forthcoming. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 poelstra at redhat.com Fri Jul 4 00:02:23 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:02:23 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-01 Message-ID: <486D688F.6060109@redhat.com> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-01 == Roll Call == Attendees: Paul Frields, Bill Nottingham, Spot Callaway, Matt Domsch, Jef Spaleta, Seth Vidal, John Poelstra, Jesse Keating Regrets: Karsten Wade, Chris Tyler, Harald Hoyer == IRC Meeting == * Happening on July 8, 2008 * IRC channels and ops are permanently set up * TODOs: *# Confirm moderator *# Paul to add new board members to the access control list == Board Elections == * Background: ** Recent discussion on fedora-advisory-board-list ** Should we consider term limits ** Are there ways to remove the distinction some folks see between those that work at Red Hat and those that do not? * Response: ** Community vote is an open process ** Number of FAS accounts does not necessarily reflect number of contributors ** How should low turn out be interpreted? **# People didn't know? **# People are happy with how things are and do not see a need to change them? **# Other possibilities include appathy or difficulties with the process ** Could we do an analysis of voter turnout based on FAS group? **# Groups where total membership is less than 10 people, exclude group from analysis **# Interested in identifying groups where we might be seen as irrelevant and can do a better job of engaging. **# Whatever we do will be published ** Could community members qualifying to vote be reminded via email? *# reminding them to vote at the beginning *# send a reminder at the end to people who have not voted ** Term limits are a good idea. Let the community help craft what they think the right policy should be on fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com list. * '''ACTIONS''': # file ticket with infrastructure requesting a mail delivery mechanism added to FAS #* keep it generic so that other groups can use it--not just limited to voting #* https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/675 # circulate ideas and foster discussion on fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com list about term limits and guidelines around them #* '''OWNER''': Seth Vidal #* set a time limit for feedback #* return feedback to the board for discussion on: 2008-08-05 == Guarding Privacy == * During the discussion around evaluating voter turnout it was noted that a mechanism was created in the past to plot CVS commits by geo and represent them on a map. * Because our privacy policy prohibits use of that data in this regard, even if we are not directly using FAS data in generating this map, we should avoid activity that has the appearance of violating our privacy policy. * '''OWNER''': Jef Spaleta * '''ACTION''': Discontinue generating this map or do whatever is required to deactivate this map. == Trademark Guidelines == * Board would like to help guide the process of expanding the use of the Fedora trademark * Helpful to brainstorm by thinking of Fedora trademark usage in four ways: # Things the board wants Fedora to be able to do with the trademark # Things the board wants the Fedora community to be able to freely do with trademark # Things the board wants other people to reasonably be expected to be able to do, but ask the Fedora Board first # Things that the board never wants people to use the Fedora trademark for * '''OWNER''': Paul Frields * '''ACTIONS''': *# circulate ideas and foster discussion on fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com list *# return feedback to the board for discussion on: 2008-08-05 == Anticipated Absences == * July 22, 2008: Jesse, Spot, Matt * July 29, 2008: Jef From kanarip at kanarip.com Fri Jul 4 21:18:33 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:18:33 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board election results In-Reply-To: References: <1214307887.3825.16.camel@victoria> <604aa7910806240918t4223ee7dsff2e09fd1d6c1d0c@mail.gmail.com> <1214324629.14225.11.camel@weaponx> <604aa7910806240940n4c0b6effg9255ad2813bf831b@mail.gmail.com> <1214327524.14225.19.camel@weaponx> <80d7e4090806241021g1540d890nc55f538f9853ceaa@mail.gmail.com> <1214329962.14225.25.camel@weaponx> <80d7e4090806241104y7759bb59jcb5147139d8f60b0@mail.gmail.com> <1214331353.14225.46.camel@weaponx> <20080624213942.9ee8cc0c.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20080624231854.c0bc0551.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <4861785E.8080508@redhat.com> <20080625023129.13d17bd9.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <4862415D.9040408@redhat.com> <20080625152222.a7c74fda.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <48624C48.30603@math.unl.edu> <20080625160757.5bc7cf92.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1214404477.14225.113.camel@weaponx> <20080625171530.18dde5db.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <486E93A9.3060802@kanarip.com> Max Spevack wrote: > FWIW, if I had $1 for every time in the last 2.5 years I told someone > *inside* Red Hat: > > "You can't do $FOO in Fedora without first getting the permission of the > Fedora Board. Asking me is not enough. The Fedora Board is Fedora's > executive team. I can tell you what I think, but I don't make the > decisions all by myself." > > then I would be living on the beach somewhere and the only emails I > would send would be to my banker in Zurich. > FWIW, Zurich actually has a beach... http://tinyurl.com/63wbc2 -Jeroen From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 8 13:46:44 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:46:44 +0000 Subject: Board IRC meeting reminder Message-ID: <1215524804.8073.345.camel@victoria> Reminder: a Board public IRC meeting will be held today at 1800 UTC. Details are on the wiki at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/IRC -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Wed Jul 9 21:57:57 2008 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:57:57 +0300 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? (was: Early MinGW packaging guidelines draft) In-Reply-To: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:58:20PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW What is Fedora's motivation is promoting using Open Source on a closed source operating system? This is beyond the FPC to decide as this is a technical committee, but still a valid question and maybe one that the board should be investigating. F/LOSS often had and has to compromise on its base principles to get a lift-off, and so does Fedora (the current exception for firmwares is such a compromise). Before there was a Linux kernel, the GNU project was "supporting" closed source Unices and by design still does so. But we're beyond the age of this kind of symbiosis, Linux (or GNU/Linux ...) and Fedora in particular doesn't need this anymore. In fact when a patch in a Fedora package is made it often doesn't matter if it works on other Unices, sometimes not even for the Free ones. In this case I don't see the benefits for Fedora. I just see more Open Source being hijacked for a non Open Source operating system. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 22:05:06 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 14:05:06 -0800 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? (was: Early MinGW packaging guidelines draft) In-Reply-To: <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <604aa7910807091505q4b83863arcbfa73ef0299f775@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Axel Thimm wrote: > In this case I don't see the benefits for Fedora. I just see more Open > Source being hijacked for a non Open Source operating system. Are you saying that applications such as the Fedora liveusb creator that runs on windows should not be promoted? -jef From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Wed Jul 9 23:01:11 2008 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:01:11 +0300 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807091505q4b83863arcbfa73ef0299f775@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807091505q4b83863arcbfa73ef0299f775@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080709230111.GD3755@victor.nirvana> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 02:05:06PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Axel Thimm wrote: > > In this case I don't see the benefits for Fedora. I just see more Open > > Source being hijacked for a non Open Source operating system. > > Are you saying that applications such as the Fedora liveusb creator > that runs on windows should not be promoted? No, obviously not - the liveusb creator's use case is not for enhancing Windows, it is allowing Windows users to make the switch. OTOH mingw is allowing Windows users to *not* make the switch. The need to go Linux gets lower for every app that works under Windows. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Wed Jul 9 23:06:50 2008 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:06:50 +0300 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080709225151.GB26746@annexia.org> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080709225151.GB26746@annexia.org> Message-ID: <20080709230650.GE3755@victor.nirvana> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 11:51:51PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:57:57AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > > But we're beyond the age of this kind of symbiosis, Linux (or > > GNU/Linux ...) and Fedora in particular doesn't need this anymore. > > The actual reality, real stuff in the real world, is that 90%+ of > users of desktop computer systems run Windows, another 5%+ are running > Mac OS X, and almost nobody (perhaps 10, 100 people in the whole > world?) are running a completely free operating system (inc. BIOS > etc). No one denies that, but don't we want to keep the fruits of F/LOSS to encourage more F/LOSS usage? Hijacking F/LOSS solutions back to closed source will not change the percentages above, on the contrary, you remove some of the good reasons to go Linux. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 23:09:35 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:09:35 -0800 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080709230111.GD3755@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807091505q4b83863arcbfa73ef0299f775@mail.gmail.com> <20080709230111.GD3755@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <604aa7910807091609x21ccdcddl9d78e937d5ceb477@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Axel Thimm wrote: > No, obviously not - the liveusb creator's use case is not for > enhancing Windows, it is allowing Windows users to make the switch. > > OTOH mingw is allowing Windows users to *not* make the switch. The > need to go Linux gets lower for every app that works under Windows. And if mingw is being delibrately made available so that people can use a virtualized linux on top of windows? Is that not a path towards switching? What if we wanted to use this tool chain specifically to build a windows application for Fedora that is meant to provide similar functionality to what wubi provides for Ubuntu, easing the path towards switching? -jef"I guess a Lego Mindstorms cross compiler toolchain in Fedora would also be extremely objectionable on the same grounds. Even though I'm using Fedora to write and compile the applications, the applications will be installed and run on a not-completely free operating system running on the Lego brick"spaleta From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Jul 9 23:17:30 2008 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:17:30 -0500 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <4875470A.5050500@math.unl.edu> Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:58:20PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW > > What is Fedora's motivation is promoting using Open Source on a closed > source operating system? Imo, motives don't matter here. If it's license-wise (and otherwise policy-wise) ok with fedora, then end of story. -- Rex From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 23:33:22 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:33:22 -0800 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <4875470A.5050500@math.unl.edu> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <4875470A.5050500@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <604aa7910807091633s72475113y20232f940573acbd@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: > Imo, motives don't matter here. If it's license-wise (and otherwise > policy-wise) ok with fedora, then end of story. Well, some could argue that policy is another word for motive :-> -jef From kanarip at kanarip.com Wed Jul 9 23:33:50 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:33:50 +0200 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080709230111.GD3755@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807091505q4b83863arcbfa73ef0299f775@mail.gmail.com> <20080709230111.GD3755@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <48754ADE.7020006@kanarip.com> Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 02:05:06PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Axel Thimm wrote: >>> In this case I don't see the benefits for Fedora. I just see more Open >>> Source being hijacked for a non Open Source operating system. >> Are you saying that applications such as the Fedora liveusb creator >> that runs on windows should not be promoted? > > No, obviously not - the liveusb creator's use case is not for > enhancing Windows, it is allowing Windows users to make the switch. > > OTOH mingw is allowing Windows users to *not* make the switch. The > need to go Linux gets lower for every app that works under Windows. The "Survival of the Fittest" principle however implies that we are not necessarily in competition with Windows, and hence there is no motive to convert it's users to Linux, as it is "soon" to be extinct ;-) Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From green at redhat.com Wed Jul 9 22:40:54 2008 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:40:54 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] supporting closed source operating systems? (was: Early MinGW packaging guidelines draft) In-Reply-To: <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <48753E76.5040109@redhat.com> Regarding the packaging for mingw tools in Fedora, Axel Thimm wrote: > In this case I don't see the benefits for Fedora. I just see more Open > Source being hijacked for a non Open Source operating system. > It's an interesting question, but here's my two part counter-argument: 1. Our goal should be to benefit users of Fedora, and not just Fedora itself. In this case, the packager is simply proposing to include tools that will benefit developers who have the misfortune of needing to target the windows operating system. If I found myself in that unfortunate position, I would be very happy to find that Fedora packaged a nice set of fully FOSS tools for me to use. 2. The Open Source definition talks about discrimination against fields of endeavor. Strictly speaking, it's talking about discrimination encoded into software licenses. However, I like to think that the Fedora Project should adopt this principal in a more general way, since it is in keeping with the Open Source philosophy of freedom. But you're asking that Fedora not include a collection of fully FOSS tools because you don't like what people are going to use them for. Do we really want to set this precedent? I hope not. AG From stickster at gmail.com Wed Jul 9 23:45:25 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:45:25 +0000 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] supporting closed source operating systems? (was: Early MinGW packaging guidelines draft) In-Reply-To: <48753E76.5040109@redhat.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <48753E76.5040109@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1215647125.31212.51.camel@victoria> On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 15:40 -0700, Anthony Green wrote: > Regarding the packaging for mingw tools in Fedora, Axel Thimm wrote: > > In this case I don't see the benefits for Fedora. I just see more Open > > Source being hijacked for a non Open Source operating system. > > > It's an interesting question, but here's my two part counter-argument: > > 1. Our goal should be to benefit users of Fedora, and not just Fedora > itself. In this case, the packager is simply proposing to include tools > that will benefit developers who have the misfortune of needing to > target the windows operating system. If I found myself in that > unfortunate position, I would be very happy to find that Fedora packaged > a nice set of fully FOSS tools for me to use. > > 2. The Open Source definition talks about discrimination against fields > of endeavor. Strictly speaking, it's talking about discrimination > encoded into software licenses. However, I like to think that the > Fedora Project should adopt this principal in a more general way, since > it is in keeping with the Open Source philosophy of freedom. But you're > asking that Fedora not include a collection of fully FOSS tools because > you don't like what people are going to use them for. Do we really want > to set this precedent? I hope not. Especially when I find it pretty easy to s/MinGW/Python/ in this thread and the arguments haven't really broken down badly yet. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Jul 9 23:59:55 2008 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:59:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <4875470A.5050500@math.unl.edu> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <4875470A.5050500@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Rex Dieter wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:58:20PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW > > > > What is Fedora's motivation is promoting using Open Source on a closed > > source operating system? > > Imo, motives don't matter here. If it's license-wise (and otherwise > policy-wise) ok with fedora, then end of story. > Perfectly said. Even did it in only two sentences! Props Rex ;-) -Mike From berrange at redhat.com Thu Jul 10 10:26:24 2008 From: berrange at redhat.com (Daniel P. Berrange) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:26:24 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080709230650.GE3755@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080709225151.GB26746@annexia.org> <20080709230650.GE3755@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <20080710102624.GA5806@redhat.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:06:50AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 11:51:51PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:57:57AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > But we're beyond the age of this kind of symbiosis, Linux (or > > > GNU/Linux ...) and Fedora in particular doesn't need this anymore. > > > > The actual reality, real stuff in the real world, is that 90%+ of > > users of desktop computer systems run Windows, another 5%+ are running > > Mac OS X, and almost nobody (perhaps 10, 100 people in the whole > > world?) are running a completely free operating system (inc. BIOS > > etc). > > No one denies that, but don't we want to keep the fruits of F/LOSS to > encourage more F/LOSS usage? Hijacking F/LOSS solutions back to closed > source will not change the percentages above, on the contrary, you > remove some of the good reasons to go Linux. On the contrary - we are providing a viable migration path to Linux which does not currently exist, due to combined vendor lockin of VMWare & Windows. You can't switch one without the other & that's not something that it viable for people to do. Our motivation here is not to hijack or sabotage Fedora or F/LOSS, but to promote its use and expand the userbase of Fedora. Fedora provides an excellant platform for hosting virtual machines either with Xen or KVM. The libvirt API provides a vendor-independant managment API which helps users avoid vendor lockin to both the hypervisor, and their management tools that you see when using VMWare & other commercial virtalization projects. Fedora has been leading the entire open source distro field in its virtualization capabilities since Fedora Core 6, and feeds into many other distros - RHEL or course, but also Ubuntu , SUSE and Solaris are following our lead in management tools. The main competition is obviously VMWare and they have been dominant in all areas for years - every company which has a virtualization management product/application supports VMWare. We've slowly been trying to get these people to support libvirt, so that they can easily manage virtual machines hosted on Fedora. The sad reality is that most commercial management products use Windows as their base and so unless we can provide libvirt for Windows they'll not use it and thus not have any support for managing Fedora hosts, and just stick with VMWare. Having people ignore Fedora as a virtualization platform in favour of VMWare is not what anyone wants. Hence we want to provide the cross compiler toolchain in Fedora, so that we can build libvirt client & client tools for Windows. This will allow people with Windows desktops & management tools to make use of Fedora virtualization. This will increase the userbase of Fedora, and Linux based virtualization platforms. It will also fully establish libvirt as the primary cross-platform, vendor neutral management API for virtualzation. This is a huge step for F/LOSS over the total dominence of VMWare in this area. I can see further use cases where providing a MinGW toolchain will benefit Fedora and F/LOSS. The FreeIPA project is providing state of the art authentication & directory services based on F/LOSS in Fedora, to rival the dominence of propriety ActiveDirectory services. This is already a huge step forward in a homogeneous environment of Linux servers and Linux desktops. Unless they can also support Windows desktops as clients though, it will forever be a niche player in the authentication/directory services arena. This is not good for F/LOSS or Fedora. A MinGW toolchain will facilitate the support of Windows clients and directly benefit the uptake of Fedora and F/LOSS in this area. The current situation where people have to use VMWare for virt if they use Windows on the desktop does not provide an easy migration path to Fedora, because they have to replace both their management infrastructure and their desktop infrastructure at the same time. By providing a libvirt client enabled for Windows, we provide a viable migration path from a Windows world to a Fedora world. They can start off using Fedora for hosting their virtual machines, and as they discover the benefits of Fedora & F/LOSS they're more likely to also switch their desktop to Fedora. So far from hijacking / sabotaging Fedora's principles, we're re-inforcing the value of Fedora and what it stands for and introducing it to a group of user who have never had any option to use it in the past. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| From berrange at redhat.com Thu Jul 10 10:40:04 2008 From: berrange at redhat.com (Daniel P. Berrange) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:40:04 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] supporting closed source operating systems? (was: Early MinGW packaging guidelines draft) In-Reply-To: <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <20080710104004.GC5806@redhat.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:57:57AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 04:58:20PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW > > What is Fedora's motivation is promoting using Open Source on a closed > source operating system? This is beyond the FPC to decide as this is a > technical committee, but still a valid question and maybe one that the > board should be investigating. > > F/LOSS often had and has to compromise on its base principles to get a > lift-off, and so does Fedora (the current exception for firmwares is > such a compromise). Before there was a Linux kernel, the GNU project > was "supporting" closed source Unices and by design still does so. > > But we're beyond the age of this kind of symbiosis, Linux (or > GNU/Linux ...) and Fedora in particular doesn't need this anymore. In > fact when a patch in a Fedora package is made it often doesn't matter > if it works on other Unices, sometimes not even for the Free ones. If we're beyond the age of symbiosis, we can remove SAMBA from Fedora then, because that's only needed for interoperability with closed source products. I'd love to believe that Fedora and F/LOSS had achieved world domination but sadly we're still fighting the battle, though unquestionably further along than we were just a few years ago. One of the best things about F/LOSS is that there are soo many projects breaking down proprietry walled gardens, but providing interoperability with closed source produts/platforms. This is providing users an escape path, allowing them to migrate to Fedora. SAMBA is a great example of this. We want Fedora+libvirt to provide the escape path for people running VMWare + Windows, and for this to work we need to provide the libirt clients for Windows platforms. This enables them to switch out VMWare in favour of Fedora + Xen/KVM, without having to migrate their entire desktop environment from Windows to Linux at the same time. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Jul 10 13:44:33 2008 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:44:33 -0500 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <4875470A.5050500@math.unl.edu> <604aa7910807091633s72475113y20232f940573acbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Imo, motives don't matter here. If it's license-wise (and otherwise >> policy-wise) ok with fedora, then end of story. > > Well, some could argue that policy is another word for motive :-> touche mr. word-twister. :) Otherwise, kind of a pet-peave of mine, whenever see I package review submission, and followups of the form "why would we/fedora want that?". Because someone is interested in it (and bothered to submit it), that's why. There's no significant "useful-ness bar" to reach, other than a package probably needs to useful or interesting enough to catch someone's attention to complete a package review. -- Rex From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 16:17:07 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:17:07 -0800 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <4875470A.5050500@math.unl.edu> <604aa7910807091633s72475113y20232f940573acbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910807100917s205f8c32s6e40422e310761aa@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: > There's no significant "useful-ness bar" to reach, other than a package > probably needs to useful or interesting enough to catch someone's attention > to complete a package review. I believe Axel's question has a more subtle edge and would like to think he chose the word "promote" deliberately in his opening sentence. We "allow" pretty much anything appropriately licensed and legal to distribute into the distro as a stand alone library or application. I don't think that is the question of merit. The meater issue is this, is it worth changing how we do things, how we package other components, to make the minwg cross-compiler tool chain 'fit' into our project development environment so that Fedora can build and ship libraries/utilities/applications with this toolchain that are meant to be run on Windows. There's already technical discussion about how to modify some existing development packages to make it possible for this toolchain to exist. Allowing the toolchain in and of itself I don't think is the issue. But there are clearly intentions...motives....floating around to use that toolchain on a Fedora system to build and distribute libraries/utilities/applications..possibly as "official" Fedora bits..though the last hasn't been communicated yet. The plan could be to do all of the building strictly under the 'Red Hat' brand... with no direct benefit for Fedora. But plans change. I'm using my crystal ball a little bit here, and I believe that Axel is too. 'We' need to know under what situations 'we' are okay with this possible future. Is it okay if we structure our internal build and development processes to make it possible to build and distribute binaries in our infrastructure with this cross-compiler toolchain with the intention to use the resulting binaries on Windows. I know what I'm personally okay with "promoting" in that regard...migration tools. If we can build windows applications as part of this project that helps people get a Fedora or other linux install up and running, whether it be virtualized or not..then I'd probably support it as an official piece of Fedora tech. -jef From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Thu Jul 10 21:23:52 2008 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:23:52 +0300 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:57:57AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > What is Fedora's motivation is promoting using Open Source on a closed > source operating system? Thanks all for enlightening this. Jeff Spaleta more or less outlined the background thoughts I was having about it - envisioning building all of our fruits for consumption on the enemy territory was a bit scary. Daniel Berrange and Richard Jones explained the libvirt background which more than justifies this move, thanks for explaining. But what I'd like to still see addressed is whether there will be a policy of what other tools/apps are acceptable for Fedora. mingw, libvirt etc. do have their justification as a means to an end, but what happens when Joe Random Packager discovers the mingw package and thinks this is an invitation to rebuild all of Fedora for Windows (where possible) and submit as a new package? Do we want this? If not how do we prevent this or communicate it properly to the packager base? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 21:53:18 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:53:18 -0800 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Axel Thimm wrote: > But what I'd like to still see addressed is whether there will be a > policy of what other tools/apps are acceptable for Fedora. mingw, > libvirt etc. do have their justification as a means to an end, but > what happens when Joe Random Packager discovers the mingw package and > thinks this is an invitation to rebuild all of Fedora for Windows > (where possible) and submit as a new package? Do we want this? If not > how do we prevent this or communicate it properly to the packager > base? So basically the question is.. how much of our existing set of software is appropriate to rebuild with the mingw chain and make available as binary packages in the project itself in the form of packages? If I'm following the technical discussion correctly.. then we are talking about packaging some set library binaries meant to be used with mingw. It's not just about making mingw available as a tool..but its also about building some library binaries with mingw and packaging them as part of Fedora as part of a mingw development environment. Or am I wrong about that? For the sake of this discussion lets just limit ourselves to libraries and development packages..that's still a big space. How many libraries should we rebuild and package as part of a functional mingw development environment as windows DLL? Is it appropriate to rebuild all of our libraries such that they can be used with mingw? Saving people the necessary effort to rebuild the libraries themselves? Is this really an appropriate use of our Project mirroring and repository resources? How much bigger would the repository end up being if all our existing libraries were repackaged as windows DLLs? Is that potential resource burn worth the trade off of making it turnkey for people to mingw to build windows executables on Fedora? The base package definitions at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW may make obvious sense as a way to get the mingw tool into the distribution. But do the concepts of packaging Windows DLL and Windows EXEs make sense for us? Do we want to be distributing a full range of Windows DLLs and Windows EXEs in our repository? Or do we want to distribute the absolute minimum set of base packages to get mingw into the hands of users and let them rebuild the DLLs they need from source? I'm not sure I'm okay with rebuilding our entire collection of libraries as Windows DLLs and packaging them as part of our distribution, taking up project repository and mirror space. -jef From matt at domsch.com Thu Jul 10 22:53:48 2008 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:53:48 -0500 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080710225348.GC25507@domsch.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:53:18PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > I'm not sure I'm okay with rebuilding our entire collection of > libraries as Windows DLLs and packaging them as part of our > distribution, taking up project repository and mirror space. why is mingw being treated (or proposed as being treated) differently than a Secondary Architecture? We already have a lot of infrastructure and policy in place for that; so it's not a different architecture, but a different underlying OS - same idea to me... From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Jul 10 23:31:21 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:31:21 -0800 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080710225348.GC25507@domsch.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> <20080710225348.GC25507@domsch.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910807101631s14328857kf5780f212ca5f26d@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: > why is mingw being treated (or proposed as being treated) differently > than a Secondary Architecture? We already have a lot of > infrastructure and policy in place for that; so it's not a different > architecture, but a different underlying OS - same idea to me... Except its explictly a cross compiler. MinGW itself needs to be part of a traditional "arch" of Fedora...because it is a linux executable itself. Now everything built witn MinGW or any other cross-compiler is no longer a native executable or library...those are the things I worry about. Can we put all of those things into a separate repo patterned on secondary arch repos..even though that repo is not self-hosting? Or to put it another way. Can we craft a general policy that fits how we treat any cross-compiled payload moving forward? Whatever we decide for MinGW.. needs to work equally well when I put NBC forward as a cross-compiler for the Lego Mindstorm NXT processor. I will very much desire to build libraries and binaries packaged in such a way that it makes it easier for people to do Mindstorm NXT development with the nbc compiler...even though noone will be able to run those programs directly inside Fedora. Can we frame MinGW compiled payloads as well as nbc compiled payloads a distinct repositories, using policy and infrastructure setup to support the concept of secondary arches? -jef"I'm not kidding about nbc..."spaleta From kwade at redhat.com Fri Jul 11 00:26:51 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:26:51 -0700 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1215736011.3142.423.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 13:53 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > I'm not sure I'm okay with rebuilding our entire collection of > libraries as Windows DLLs and packaging them as part of our > distribution, taking up project repository and mirror space. Aside from the secondary arch precedent, there are the precedents of EPEL and OLPC. There is a strong relationship between Fedora and RHEL, but packages from one don't necessarily run on the other. The difference in these cases is that we can emulate/virtualize environments from within Fedora to run e.g. RHEL and OLPC (Sugar), all from 100% FLOSS. The same is may not be true of DLLs and EXEs from MinGW. Maybe some runs under WINE, or Cygwin. But all? Seems unlikely. I am only pointing out the precedents and differences in this case, I've no idea yet if we are in danger of slipping down a slope. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org 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 jspaleta at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 16:35:50 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:35:50 -0800 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <1215736011.3142.423.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> <1215736011.3142.423.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <604aa7910807110935r6cf8f7c7w166e17ad20af429b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > I am only pointing out the precedents and differences in this case, I've > no idea yet if we are in danger of slipping down a slope. I haven't seen anyone put forward any rationale by which to limit which libraries we distribute compiled against mingw. The libraries so far suggested are specifically targeted so libvirt can be more easily developed. But there's no bright line painted as to why we should not allow all libraries to be rebuild and packaged if people desire them. If we let the relatively narrow set of libraries be rebuilt for the virtualization development needs as part of our repository, then we are opening the door for all libraries to be rebuild and packaged. I haven't seen a credible argument to limit mingw rebuilds to just what libvirt needs. And quite frankly we shouldn't be setting limits on intended use. If we allow any mingw built libraries into a repository we control.. then we should let all libraries be rebuilt with mingw. We should not get into the business of trying to determine if one sort of development need for a library is more worthwhile than any other. So if we let in what libvirt needs rebuilt in mingw, I'm pretty sure we are going to be pressed into allowing more libraries down the line, as people find more reasons to want to cross compile. That's potentially a lot of additional space to be consumed in the main repository we ask mirrors to carry. I'm not sure any of the mingw rebuilt items should be in the main repository. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to exist..but I am saying that its probably best to distribute them as their own collection outside of the main repository -jef From a.badger at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 17:47:34 2008 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:47:34 -0700 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807110935r6cf8f7c7w166e17ad20af429b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> <1215736011.3142.423.camel@calliope.phig.org> <604aa7910807110935r6cf8f7c7w166e17ad20af429b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48779CB6.9020809@gmail.com> Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: >> I am only pointing out the precedents and differences in this case, I've >> no idea yet if we are in danger of slipping down a slope. > > I haven't seen anyone put forward any rationale by which to limit > which libraries we distribute compiled against mingw. The libraries > so far suggested are specifically targeted so libvirt can be more > easily developed. But there's no bright line painted as to why we > should not allow all libraries to be rebuild and packaged if people > desire them. If we let the relatively narrow set of libraries be > rebuilt for the virtualization development needs as part of our > repository, then we are opening the door for all libraries to be > rebuild and packaged. I haven't seen a credible argument to limit > mingw rebuilds to just what libvirt needs. And quite frankly we > shouldn't be setting limits on intended use. If we allow any mingw > built libraries into a repository we control.. then we should let all > libraries be rebuilt with mingw. +1 Here's why: I want Fedora to be a premier platform for developing software. I want Fedora to attract developers of software to it. Having mingw and a non-excluded range of OSS libraries furthers this goal by allowing developers who might have had to develop on a proprietary OS or with proprietary libraries to now build on Fedora with OSS libraries instead. If these developers come to enjoy using Fedora, they will see more reason to enhance their experience on Fedora leading to more *contributors* to OSS software. > We should not get into the business > of trying to determine if one sort of development need for a library > is more worthwhile than any other. So if we let in what libvirt needs > rebuilt in mingw, I'm pretty sure we are going to be pressed into > allowing more libraries down the line, as people find more reasons to > want to cross compile. That's potentially a lot of additional space > to be consumed in the main repository we ask mirrors to carry. I'm > not sure any of the mingw rebuilt items should be in the main > repository. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to exist..but I > am saying that its probably best to distribute them as their own > collection outside of the main repository > So here's a question: We've already established that mingw doesn't fit the model of secondary arches but does it fit the model of EPEL and OLPC? Can we have a repo/sub project that has its own branches of packages in CVS and builds that target windows using mingw on Fedora? Is that something we have enough interested parties to do? Note: This may or may not scale very well when we think of expanding it to the realm of all cross-compilers. But we probably aren't talking about potentially rebuilding every library in Fedora for the Lego MindStorm :-) -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jspaleta at gmail.com Fri Jul 11 18:41:04 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:41:04 -0800 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <48779CB6.9020809@gmail.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> <1215736011.3142.423.camel@calliope.phig.org> <604aa7910807110935r6cf8f7c7w166e17ad20af429b@mail.gmail.com> <48779CB6.9020809@gmail.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910807111141i148f732dn2c0ee711e8df75fd@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > We've already established that mingw doesn't fit the model of secondary > arches but does it fit the model of EPEL and OLPC? Have we? I'm not sure we have enough people talking about it yet.. to be sure. I have questions, I'm deliberately playing the ignorant fool (when in doubt go with what you know) hoping someone with intimate knowledge on where the 2ndary arch infrastructure chimes in on whether or not we can setup a mingw built tree 'like' a 2ndary arch. > Can we have a repo/sub > project that has its own branches of packages in CVS and builds that target > windows using mingw on Fedora? Is that something we have enough interested > parties to do? Can we? We'd need to think hard about how we want to integrate any mingw spec logic into existing specfiles for libraries. Or do we let the mingw specfiles run completely parallel to our existing packages and not try to work mingw logic into our existing specs? I think the cross-compiler aspects of mingw bring some unique packaging challenges on us, that far surpasses the sort of problems we've seen with trying to support EPEL as branches in our existing cvs for example. Looking at the -devel-list thread concerning dep resolution work arounds tells me doing this right isn't going to following an easy-bake-oven recipe. For example, is it going to matter as to what branch of Fedora mingw built DLL's are actually built on? Or can we lump DLL packages together into a single repository regardless of which version of Fedora they were actually built inside of? If we setup a mingw built repository would it need to have release branches that matched the Fedora release branches? Or can we get away with a mingw repository with its own release branching schedule that was not tied directly to the Fedora release schedule? Since none of the resulting DLL payloads can be used natively on Fedora... can you essentially 'use' such a standalone mingw repository equally well across different Fedora versions to install DLL packages? Certainly right now there is a a small..core..group of developers who are pushing mingw compiled libraries forward specifically for libvirt client needs. Can we set aside some initial project infrastructure space of a specified size for an initial mingw branch and master repository..with the understanding that as it grows in popularity people working inside that branch will need to bring additional infrastructure to the table..such as mirrors and potentially master hosting space as the size of the binary pool grows significantly? I've no problem expending project resources as a genesis for a mingw built repository of packages, but I'm not sure we can make a commitment to host a fully realized mingw built library space given pressure to host other contributed materials. In that sense its a lot like 2ndary arches. If the mingw branch is going to be successful, we are going to need its contributor and userbase to bring some infrastructure to the table for it. > Note: This may or may not scale very well when we think of expanding it to > the realm of all cross-compilers. But we probably aren't talking about > potentially rebuilding every library in Fedora for the Lego MindStorm :-) This won't be the last cross-compiler of import that we are going to have to deal with. And I'd rather craft a general framework for this sort of thing now, that we are comfortable with using as a starting point in the general case when we have another cross-compiler sub-community wanting to do work within the Fedora project umbrella. -jef From poelstra at redhat.com Sat Jul 12 14:14:15 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:14:15 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-08 Message-ID: <4878BC37.1030105@redhat.com> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-08 == Roll Call == Attendees: Everyone on irc.freenode.net #fedora-board-meeting == Discussion Summary == * Board followup on CVS commits map and privacy considerations ** OWNER: [[User:Spot|spot]] will open ticket with Infrastructure, geo data opt-in for FAS * Board answers community questions on: ** Whether and how to quantify and use community work data ** The #1 supercomputer in the world runs Fedora - http://www.top500.org/system/9485 ** Spreading other big installation success stories *** OWNER: [[User:Jspaleta|Jef]] will set up list of questions on [[http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list| Marketing list]] ** Election improvements *** Board consensus is that open nomination process is OK, provided nominee accepts *** OWNER: [[User:Inode0|John Rose]] will deliver a list of places where we need to document the above ** FESCo role ** Other activities Board members are involved with == IRC Transcript == From mmcgrath at redhat.com Sun Jul 13 06:12:09 2008 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:12:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-08 In-Reply-To: <4878BC37.1030105@redhat.com> References: <4878BC37.1030105@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, John Poelstra wrote: > * Board followup on CVS commits map and privacy considerations > ** OWNER: [[User:Spot|spot]] will open ticket with Infrastructure, geo data > opt-in for FAS Do we want to include something else with this? I only ask because if in the future we decide we want something else, it'll be another checkbox or re-wording and asking everyone to re-check it. For example, does time zone or locale fall in the same category as geo data? -Mike From jonstanley at gmail.com Sun Jul 13 12:42:24 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:42:24 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-08 In-Reply-To: References: <4878BC37.1030105@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Do we want to include something else with this? I only ask because if in > the future we decide we want something else, it'll be another checkbox or > re-wording and asking everyone to re-check it. For example, does time > zone or locale fall in the same category as geo data? Agreed to make it more broad than just geo-data - something like "non-personally identifiable aggregate data" or something of the like (I'm sure someone could come up with something much more eloquent than that :) ) From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Jul 13 14:36:38 2008 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:36:38 +0300 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-08 In-Reply-To: <4878BC37.1030105@redhat.com> References: <4878BC37.1030105@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20080713143638.GA18161@victor.nirvana> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 07:14:15AM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > ** The #1 supercomputer in the world runs Fedora - > http://www.top500.org/system/9485 I think that's worth a fedora-announce posting. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Jul 13 16:30:12 2008 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:30:12 +0300 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 04:34:01PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:23:52AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > > but what happens when Joe Random Packager discovers the mingw > > package and thinks this is an invitation to rebuild all of Fedora > > for Windows (where possible) and submit as a new package? Do we > > want this? If not how do we prevent this or communicate it > > properly to the packager base? > > Joe Random would certainly have a lot of time on his hands to do this. > > MinGW cross-compiles are *not* straightforward, and will require a > great deal of care and maintenance, dealing with upstream to fix newly > introduced bugs and so on. As with other Fedora packages, they only > go in if someone is willing to maintain them, and come out if no one > is willing to continue maintaining them. Hi, Joe Random's (in)finite time resources and (in)finite reviewing pals are not the problem, I'm not addressing this from a technical/organisational POV, but from principles. Just to present a real life example: I was arguing on the merits of having Fedora at schools as it comes with openoffice, gimp and so on, and a teacher took out a portable drive with portableapps.com and demostrated that he already has all of this on Windows now. And indeed the systems are now still running Windows ... So, when Joe Random starts preparing to use Fedora as a platform for building gimp or some other interesting F/LOSS bits for a proprietary system that is harming Fedora *Linux* are we really open to this? Maybe we are, I'm just posing the question. Maybe Fedora is about promoting free/open software in general whether that runs on a Linux kernel or whether that runs on *BSD, a proprieray Unix/Windows system etc. Maybe its is narrowing down to promoting fuller F/LOSS solutions including the OS, e.g. Linux and *BSD. Or it is (what I thought until now) a Linux based F/LOSS model (which doesn't preclude good relation with *BSD camps, or willing to help people on the Windows side of the earth to make the step to Linux). I think this is a rephrasing of Jeff's brigth line that he seeks to draw and wants to know what it will include and what not. So the issue is a political one, not a technical one. Supporting libvirt for running Fedora under Windows is one thing, supporting increased productivity on Windows another. Personally I would discourage the second model, or at least outsource it away from the Fedora brand. And we should decide on it now, that mingw is entering Fedora, rather than dealing with it when the Joe Randoms come in. Just to trigger some related thoughts: I wonder what would happen if someone submitted a cross-compiler and cross-built libs/tools for SCO Unix. Would we lay back and discuss it on technical points and whether there are enough maintainers etc? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net From rjones at redhat.com Sun Jul 13 15:34:01 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:34:01 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:23:52AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > but > what happens when Joe Random Packager discovers the mingw package and > thinks this is an invitation to rebuild all of Fedora for Windows > (where possible) and submit as a new package? Do we want this? If not > how do we prevent this or communicate it properly to the packager > base? Joe Random would certainly have a lot of time on his hands to do this. MinGW cross-compiles are *not* straightforward, and will require a great deal of care and maintenance, dealing with upstream to fix newly introduced bugs and so on. As with other Fedora packages, they only go in if someone is willing to maintain them, and come out if no one is willing to continue maintaining them. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ From rjones at redhat.com Sun Jul 13 16:02:07 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:02:07 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080713160207.GC1120@amd.home.annexia.org> I would just like to direct people on the fedora-advisory-board list to my previous reply here, which should address all of Jeff's questions: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-July/msg00043.html except for this one: On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 01:53:18PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Is this really an appropriate use of our Project mirroring and > repository resources? How much bigger would the repository end up > being if all our existing libraries were repackaged as windows DLLs? Leaving aside the fact that it's completely unrealistic to think anyone could recompile every Fedora library, and no one is proposing to do this anyway (see my answer above), I do have some figures on how big the MinGW RPMs are on my (32 bit) machine compared to the ordinary Fedora RPMs [0]: 4.1M mingw-libxml2-2.6.32-1.fc10.i386.rpm 847K libxml2-2.6.32-3.fc10.i386.rpm 1.4M libxml2-devel-2.6.32-3.fc10.i386.rpm 108K mingw-zlib-1.2.3-1.fc10.i386.rpm 75K zlib-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386.rpm 43K zlib-devel-1.2.3-18.fc9.i386.rpm 3.3M mingw-gnutls-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm 390K gnutls-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm 2.5M gnutls-devel-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm 128K gnutls-utils-2.4.1-2.fc10.i386.rpm [1] If we carry out a plan of building from the same SRPM then there shouldn't be any significant increase there. There are no debuginfo packages for MinGW. Rich. [0] Note that there is no foo / foo-devel split in the mingw packages. [1] Windows utilities (certtool.exe etc) are included in the mingw-gnutls package at present. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/ Fedora now supports 59 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Jul 13 19:26:29 2008 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:26:29 +0300 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <48779CB6.9020809@gmail.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <604aa7910807101453l189c20c3v82d1da9b818f5349@mail.gmail.com> <1215736011.3142.423.camel@calliope.phig.org> <604aa7910807110935r6cf8f7c7w166e17ad20af429b@mail.gmail.com> <48779CB6.9020809@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080713192629.GA22669@victor.nirvana> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:47:34AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > We've already established that mingw doesn't fit the model of secondary > arches [...] Depends on what we define with secondary arches. I thought the definition is a) if some rawhide/update build fails on these it doesn't matter, the package get's pushed for the primary archs. b) secondary archs have a different mirroring space But other than that secondary archs meant to my understanding a Fedora sharing the same src.rpms (to the biggest extent possible, e.g. grub, where grub actually can work etc) on that particular arch including kernel/glibc, or not? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net From rjones at redhat.com Sun Jul 13 20:10:46 2008 From: rjones at redhat.com (Richard W.M. Jones) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:10:46 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <20080713201046.GA1752@amd.home.annexia.org> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 07:30:12PM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > So, when Joe Random starts preparing to use Fedora as a platform for > building gimp or some other interesting F/LOSS bits for a proprietary > system that is harming Fedora *Linux* are we really open to this? It's not at all clear that being able to build Gimp (as an example) is harming Fedora. There are at least three cases: (1) User switches from Photoshop to Gimp (and other free apps) and eventually, much later asks themselves 'why am I bothering to pay for this Windows stuff when Linux runs all the same apps I'm now using?' and they are then able to easily switch to Linux. (2) User switches from Photoshop to Gimp, but continues using Windows forever because they simply prefer the 'Start' menu and other Windows desktop features. (3) Because the fedora-packaging mailing list has successfully prevented any free apps from being available for Windows, user is forced to switch their entire system (all their apps, operating system, document formats) all at once from proprietary to free. Which is likely to happen? No idea. You could, I guess, devise a study to see what typical users do. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Jul 13 21:43:10 2008 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:43:10 +0300 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080713201046.GA1752@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> <20080713201046.GA1752@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <20080713214310.GA24420@victor.nirvana> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 09:10:46PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 07:30:12PM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > > So, when Joe Random starts preparing to use Fedora as a platform for > > building gimp or some other interesting F/LOSS bits for a proprietary > > system that is harming Fedora *Linux* are we really open to this? > > It's not at all clear that being able to build Gimp (as an example) is > harming Fedora. > > There are at least three cases: > > (1) User switches from Photoshop to Gimp (and other free apps) and > eventually, much later asks themselves 'why am I bothering to pay for > this Windows stuff when Linux runs all the same apps I'm now using?' > and they are then able to easily switch to Linux. Does this include the typical user that had a proprietary OS preinstalled (and prepaid whether he liked it or not) on his system, or does he propably not care now to make the switch since his needs are fulfilled? And any other user that had a legitimate Windows license is in great pain to even sell it if he's allowed to at all. > (2) User switches from Photoshop to Gimp, but continues using Windows > forever because they simply prefer the 'Start' menu and other Windows > desktop features. > > (3) Because the fedora-packaging mailing list has successfully > prevented any free apps from being available for Windows, user is > forced to switch their entire system (all their apps, operating > system, document formats) all at once from proprietary to free. I thought the libvirt on Windows project was there to create a middle-step for this, or not? > Which is likely to happen? No idea. You could, I guess, devise a > study to see what typical users do. Please check my full post, it actually contained a recent real life example from a school that was about to switch to Fedora until it was discovered that one can use gimp and other free software on Windows XP. And if it counts as a study, I certainly did have the argument of Windows vs Linux about a million times, and I'm sure everyone on this list and his cat had it as well. We don't really need a study on the oldest question in the Computer Age. ;) Very few people run Windows for the pleasure of it - applications, be that an Office suite, graphics, internet, and even games define the true stack. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net From fche at redhat.com Mon Jul 14 01:23:12 2008 From: fche at redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:23:12 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080713201046.GA1752__27174.3915895515$1215980399$gmane$org@amd.home.annexia.org> (Richard W. M. Jones's message of "Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:10:46 +0100") References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> <20080713201046.GA1752__27174.3915895515$1215980399$gmane$org@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: "Richard W.M. Jones" writes: > [...] (3) Because the fedora-packaging mailing list has > successfully prevented any free apps from being available for > Windows [...] That is ridiculous. The most anyone might propose is that if libvirt wants to mate with proprietary code on windows, that it get distributed separately from fedora for that market. - FChE From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jul 14 14:13:25 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:13:25 -0700 Subject: open nominations [Fwd: Re: [Reminder] FESCo Election Nominations] Message-ID: <1216044805.6309.122.camel@calliope.phig.org> For those who didn't follow this thread, FESCo picked up the suggestion from this list for adding an open nomination option. The caveat is, they want to be candidates to affirm their commitment to a nomination from someone else. -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Brian Pepple Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora To: Development discussions related to Fedora Subject: Re: [Reminder] FESCo Election Nominations Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:09:33 -0400 On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 22:05 +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:54:00 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > I'd be happy to see open nominations, provided that the nominee has to > > accept the nomination before being put on the ballot. > > Agreed, Ok, since we've had a couple of ack's and more importantly no objections to having open nominations, let's go ahead and do it. I've created a section on the page for people to nominate folks to FESCo, and if the nominee accepts it, they can move their information to the Candidates section (so I can easily know has accepted the nomination). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Nominations#Nominations Later, /B -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org 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 jonstanley at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 14:33:33 2008 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:33:33 -0400 Subject: open nominations [Fwd: Re: [Reminder] FESCo Election Nominations] In-Reply-To: <1216044805.6309.122.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <1216044805.6309.122.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > For those who didn't follow this thread, FESCo picked up the suggestion > from this list for adding an open nomination option. The caveat is, > they want to be candidates to affirm their commitment to a nomination > from someone else. I think that this makes a great deal of sense - what if you nominated me, and I had absolutely no desire whatsoever to serve, for whatever reason (maybe I lack the time, maybe I don't agree with what FESCo is doing, maybe I'm just not comfortable in that position) - there are a million reasons why someone might decline a nomination - the person *should* affirmatively say "yes, thank you, and if elected, I'll serve";. I personally wouldn't call it a caveat, I'd call it common sense :) From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jul 14 19:48:38 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:48:38 -0700 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 19:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > I think this is a rephrasing of Jeff's brigth line that he seeks to > draw and wants to know what it will include and what not. Thanks for this post, for me it did a good job of separating the technical from $other considerations. The Fedora brand is a Linux brand. It makes sense to have some Microsoft Windows stuff where it supports that story, such as tools to assist migration ... to Linux. The libvirt pieces seem, to me, to be a good enough fit and belong on this side of the bright line. But we need to make it clear that we are not going to morph Fedora into being some super-meta-FLOSS thing. So, to me, the productivity apps belong on the other side of the bright line. If we want to be involved in helping people switch from Microsoft Windows by supporting productivity FLOSS stacks that runs on that OS, it should be under a brand other than Fedora. Such as "Mozilla". ;-D - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jul 14 19:50:20 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:50:20 -0700 Subject: open nominations [Fwd: Re: [Reminder] FESCo Election Nominations] In-Reply-To: References: <1216044805.6309.122.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <1216065020.6309.155.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 10:33 -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > For those who didn't follow this thread, FESCo picked up the suggestion > > from this list for adding an open nomination option. The caveat is, > > they want to be candidates to affirm their commitment to a nomination > > from someone else. > > I think that this makes a great deal of sense - what if you nominated > me, and I had absolutely no desire whatsoever to serve, for whatever > reason (maybe I lack the time, maybe I don't agree with what FESCo is > doing, maybe I'm just not comfortable in that position) - there are a > million reasons why someone might decline a nomination - the person > *should* affirmatively say "yes, thank you, and if elected, I'll > serve";. I personally wouldn't call it a caveat, I'd call it common > sense :) Sure. I had written caveat because I'd started to go in to the particular use case that (iirc) Brian referred to, then I changed my mind. Maybe, instead of 'caveat' or 'common sense', we can call it a 'requirement'. :) - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org 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 jspaleta at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 20:02:18 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:02:18 -0800 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-08 In-Reply-To: References: <4878BC37.1030105@redhat.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910807141302q1c0f30cahee2eed0748a34f12@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Do we want to include something else with this? I only ask because if in > the future we decide we want something else, it'll be another checkbox or > re-wording and asking everyone to re-check it. For example, does time > zone or locale fall in the same category as geo data? Can we use a blanket opt-in checkbox so we can aggregate any and all account information? or is there information we would never ever want the ability to aggregate? Do we need a checkbox per field? So as we add fields people get a new opt-in checkbox? If I were going to do one checkbox it would read sort of like this: I am allowing the Fedora project to publish details of my account as part of aggregate data summaries. So we would be able to use an accounts ip address, geo data, locale, or even name, such as part of counting or trending statistics. For example what if we wanted to know how many contributors had a last names starting with M or S? By ticking this box we could include your personal information in that aggregate count. Obviously that sort of alphabetic breakdown would unlikely to be needed. But it serves as an example of a way to take obviously personal identifying information and aggregating it. And I would need to be able to get a count of the people who did or did not opt-in. Knowing that we have say 10% opting-in would help qualify any aggregate numbers we got out. -jef From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Mon Jul 14 19:53:59 2008 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (seth vidal) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:53:59 -0400 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <1216065239.22834.20.camel@rosebud> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 12:48 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 19:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > I think this is a rephrasing of Jeff's brigth line that he seeks to > > draw and wants to know what it will include and what not. > > Thanks for this post, for me it did a good job of separating the > technical from $other considerations. > > The Fedora brand is a Linux brand. It makes sense to have some > Microsoft Windows stuff where it supports that story, such as tools to > assist migration ... to Linux. The libvirt pieces seem, to me, to be a > good enough fit and belong on this side of the bright line. > > But we need to make it clear that we are not going to morph Fedora into > being some super-meta-FLOSS thing. So, to me, the productivity apps > belong on the other side of the bright line. If we want to be involved > in helping people switch from Microsoft Windows by supporting > productivity FLOSS stacks that runs on that OS, it should be under a > brand other than Fedora. Such as "Mozilla". ;-D > Thanks Karsten. I agree with the above. -sv From jspaleta at gmail.com Mon Jul 14 20:08:38 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:08:38 -0800 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <604aa7910807141308w6175d351l63de8ab29a3955cd@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > The Fedora brand is a Linux brand. It makes sense to have some > Microsoft Windows stuff where it supports that story, such as tools to > assist migration ... to Linux. The libvirt pieces seem, to me, to be a > good enough fit and belong on this side of the bright line. Even if you want to draw the line based on intent in the language of cohesive branding...and you want to say that compared to the possible community needs for cross-development..the libvirt needs enhance the value of the brand in a way that other cross-development needs in the community do not....I'm still not sure this needs to be in the main repository of the distribution. We can brand it Fedora and it can live outside the main repo. I do not want to have to defend a special case for mingw cross-compiled stuff specifically on the basis that it is good for libvirt development on Windows and exclude all the other possible cross-development needs which the community will think up once they have access mingw as part of our distribution. And they will think them up. If we are going to special case it, lets special case it outside the main Fedora linux distribution repository and set this up as Fedora branded addon repository targeting libvirt on windows specifically. -jef From matt at domsch.com Mon Jul 14 20:37:35 2008 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:37:35 -0500 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <20080714203735.GA22811@domsch.com> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:48:38PM -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 19:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > I think this is a rephrasing of Jeff's brigth line that he seeks to > > draw and wants to know what it will include and what not. > > Thanks for this post, for me it did a good job of separating the > technical from $other considerations. > > The Fedora brand is a Linux brand. It makes sense to have some > Microsoft Windows stuff where it supports that story, such as tools to > assist migration ... to Linux. The libvirt pieces seem, to me, to be a > good enough fit and belong on this side of the bright line. > > But we need to make it clear that we are not going to morph Fedora into > being some super-meta-FLOSS thing. So, to me, the productivity apps > belong on the other side of the bright line. If we want to be involved > in helping people switch from Microsoft Windows by supporting > productivity FLOSS stacks that runs on that OS, it should be under a > brand other than Fedora. Such as "Mozilla". ;-D I'm OK with Fedora's scope being expanded beyond just "Linux". The Apache Foundation is an example where this has worked quite well. As for mingw, I agree, the resultant bits need to land in their own directory structure outside the main tree, just like we do with seconaries. From mmcgrath at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 00:28:05 2008 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:28:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-08 In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807141302q1c0f30cahee2eed0748a34f12@mail.gmail.com> References: <4878BC37.1030105@redhat.com> <604aa7910807141302q1c0f30cahee2eed0748a34f12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 14 Jul 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > Do we want to include something else with this? I only ask because if in > > the future we decide we want something else, it'll be another checkbox or > > re-wording and asking everyone to re-check it. For example, does time > > zone or locale fall in the same category as geo data? > > Can we use a blanket opt-in checkbox so we can aggregate any and all > account information? or is there information we would never ever want > the ability to aggregate? Do we need a checkbox per field? So as we > add fields people get a new opt-in checkbox? > We could... but not even I would check it. > If I were going to do one checkbox it would read sort of like this: > I am allowing the Fedora project to publish details of my account as > part of aggregate data summaries. > > So we would be able to use an accounts ip address, geo data, locale, > or even name, such as part of counting or trending statistics. For > example what if we wanted to know how many contributors had a last > names starting with M or S? By ticking this box we could include your > personal information in that aggregate count. Obviously that sort of > alphabetic breakdown would unlikely to be needed. But it serves as an > example of a way to take obviously personal identifying information > and aggregating it. > AFAIK, we can use IP address now. Though we don't link it to a username. -Mike From harald at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 12:08:31 2008 From: harald at redhat.com (Harald Hoyer) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:08:31 +0200 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <1216065239.22834.20.camel@rosebud> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> <1216065239.22834.20.camel@rosebud> Message-ID: <487C933F.8030101@redhat.com> seth vidal wrote: > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 12:48 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: >> On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 19:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: >> >>> I think this is a rephrasing of Jeff's brigth line that he seeks to >>> draw and wants to know what it will include and what not. >> Thanks for this post, for me it did a good job of separating the >> technical from $other considerations. >> >> The Fedora brand is a Linux brand. It makes sense to have some >> Microsoft Windows stuff where it supports that story, such as tools to >> assist migration ... to Linux. The libvirt pieces seem, to me, to be a >> good enough fit and belong on this side of the bright line. >> >> But we need to make it clear that we are not going to morph Fedora into >> being some super-meta-FLOSS thing. So, to me, the productivity apps >> belong on the other side of the bright line. If we want to be involved >> in helping people switch from Microsoft Windows by supporting >> productivity FLOSS stacks that runs on that OS, it should be under a >> brand other than Fedora. Such as "Mozilla". ;-D >> > > Thanks Karsten. I agree with the above. > > -sv Agreed also. Well said. From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 12:53:10 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:53:10 -0400 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <487C933F.8030101@redhat.com> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> <1216065239.22834.20.camel@rosebud> <487C933F.8030101@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1216126390.6934.2.camel@victoria> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 14:08 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 12:48 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > >> On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 19:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > >> > >>> I think this is a rephrasing of Jeff's brigth line that he seeks to > >>> draw and wants to know what it will include and what not. > >> Thanks for this post, for me it did a good job of separating the > >> technical from $other considerations. > >> > >> The Fedora brand is a Linux brand. It makes sense to have some > >> Microsoft Windows stuff where it supports that story, such as tools to > >> assist migration ... to Linux. The libvirt pieces seem, to me, to be a > >> good enough fit and belong on this side of the bright line. > >> > >> But we need to make it clear that we are not going to morph Fedora into > >> being some super-meta-FLOSS thing. So, to me, the productivity apps > >> belong on the other side of the bright line. If we want to be involved > >> in helping people switch from Microsoft Windows by supporting > >> productivity FLOSS stacks that runs on that OS, it should be under a > >> brand other than Fedora. Such as "Mozilla". ;-D > >> > > > > Thanks Karsten. I agree with the above. > > > > -sv > > Agreed also. Well said. And in actuality that project (productivity for non-free OS) already exists: http://releases.theopencd.org/latest/ -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jul 15 12:59:46 2008 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:59:46 +0300 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <1216126390.6934.2.camel@victoria> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> <1216065239.22834.20.camel@rosebud> <487C933F.8030101@redhat.com> <1216126390.6934.2.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <20080715125946.GA21696@victor.nirvana> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 08:53:10AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > And in actuality that project (productivity for non-free OS) already > exists: > > http://releases.theopencd.org/latest/ You probably mean opendisk, opencd is out of development since a couple of years. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 15:17:35 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:17:35 -0400 Subject: supporting closed source operating systems? In-Reply-To: <20080715125946.GA21696@victor.nirvana> References: <20080708155820.GA17077@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080709215757.GC3755@victor.nirvana> <20080710212352.GA21234@victor.nirvana> <20080713153401.GB1120@amd.home.annexia.org> <20080713163012.GB18161@victor.nirvana> <1216064918.6309.152.camel@calliope.phig.org> <1216065239.22834.20.camel@rosebud> <487C933F.8030101@redhat.com> <1216126390.6934.2.camel@victoria> <20080715125946.GA21696@victor.nirvana> Message-ID: <1216135055.6934.24.camel@victoria> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 15:59 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 08:53:10AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > And in actuality that project (productivity for non-free OS) already > > exists: > > > > http://releases.theopencd.org/latest/ > > You probably mean opendisk, opencd is out of development since a > couple of years. Sorry, yes. I followed a bad link from the SFD site. The right one is: http://www.theopendisc.com/ -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 Tue Jul 15 20:04:00 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:04:00 +0000 Subject: TM use cases Message-ID: <1216152240.6934.85.camel@victoria> I've posted a summary of some use cases that could help guide us in formulating new trademark gudelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines You can use the "discussion" tab to place any salient points, or feel free to reply here. Feel free also to add other use cases that you feel have been missed. The Board and I are very interested in making sure that the new trademark guidelines ensure that: 1. Community members have a fairly wide berth for using the Fedora trademarks in ways that advance the mission of the project; 2. We minimize drag or overhead for people to get permission for pre-approved uses; 3. People outside the community can still drive interest from those external areas; and 4. We are protecting the trademark from dilution or abuse by people who aren't interested in furthering these goals, and preventing public confusion over our brand, mission, and principles. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- 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 gerold at lugd.org Tue Jul 15 20:11:49 2008 From: gerold at lugd.org (Gerold Kassube) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:11:49 +0200 Subject: TM use cases In-Reply-To: <1216152240.6934.85.camel@victoria> References: <1216152240.6934.85.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <1216152709.3162.0.camel@F9NB.homenet.local> +1 Am Dienstag, den 15.07.2008, 20:04 +0000 schrieb Paul W. Frields: > I've posted a summary of some use cases that could help guide us in > formulating new trademark gudelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/NewTrademarkGuidelines > > You can use the "discussion" tab to place any salient points, or feel > free to reply here. Feel free also to add other use cases that you feel > have been missed. > > The Board and I are very interested in making sure that the new > trademark guidelines ensure that: > > 1. Community members have a fairly wide berth for using the Fedora > trademarks in ways that advance the mission of the project; > 2. We minimize drag or overhead for people to get permission for > pre-approved uses; > 3. People outside the community can still drive interest from those > external areas; and > 4. We are protecting the trademark from dilution or abuse by people who > aren't interested in furthering these goals, and preventing public > confusion over our brand, mission, and principles. > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board -- Gerold Kassube -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jul 16 21:47:50 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:47:50 -0400 Subject: New Fedora Privacy Policy Message-ID: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> For a while now, we've been butting up against the Red Hat Privacy Policy (which we've been using to cover Fedora). To try to address some of these concerns, I sat down and made a new privacy policy for Fedora to use that is independent of Red Hat's Privacy Policy. I made a draft, then sent it over to Red Hat Legal for review. They made some minor changes and sent it back to me. Here it is for you folks to look over: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/PrivacyPolicyDraft Keep in mind that while this is more open than the Red Hat Privacy Policy, I think it is more in keeping with the spirit of Fedora. (Also, it is directly derived from Red Hat's privacy policy, so its not as if I completely rewrote it from scratch). Barring any major failures, I plan to present this for approval at next week's board meeting. Comments are welcome. Thanks, ~spot From dennis at ausil.us Wed Jul 16 22:25:29 2008 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:25:29 -0500 Subject: New Fedora Privacy Policy In-Reply-To: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200807161725.32089.dennis@ausil.us> On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > For a while now, we've been butting up against the Red Hat Privacy > Policy (which we've been using to cover Fedora). To try to address some > of these concerns, I sat down and made a new privacy policy for Fedora > to use that is independent of Red Hat's Privacy Policy. I made a draft, > then sent it over to Red Hat Legal for review. They made some minor > changes and sent it back to me. > > Here it is for you folks to look over: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/PrivacyPolicyDraft > > Keep in mind that while this is more open than the Red Hat Privacy > Policy, I think it is more in keeping with the spirit of Fedora. (Also, > it is directly derived from Red Hat's privacy policy, so its not as if I > completely rewrote it from scratch). > > Barring any major failures, I plan to present this for approval at next > week's board meeting. > > Comments are welcome. I would do a s/Fedora/Fedora Project/g otherwise it looks ok to me. -- Dennis Gilmore -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 01:52:10 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:52:10 -0400 Subject: New Fedora Privacy Policy In-Reply-To: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1216259530.13063.0.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 17:47 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > For a while now, we've been butting up against the Red Hat Privacy > Policy (which we've been using to cover Fedora). To try to address some > of these concerns, I sat down and made a new privacy policy for Fedora Could you enumerate what those concerns are/were? Not everyone is aware of the reasons to write a new policy. josh From katzj at redhat.com Thu Jul 17 02:01:51 2008 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:01:51 -0400 Subject: New Fedora Privacy Policy In-Reply-To: <1216259530.13063.0.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216259530.13063.0.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1216260111.12841.47.camel@aglarond.local> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 21:52 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 17:47 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > For a while now, we've been butting up against the Red Hat Privacy > > Policy (which we've been using to cover Fedora). To try to address some > > of these concerns, I sat down and made a new privacy policy for Fedora > > Could you enumerate what those concerns are/were? Not everyone is aware > of the reasons to write a new policy. Paul gave some examples in his blog post earlier (http://marilyn.frields.org:8080/~paul/wordpress/?p=1063). To save people some trouble, and as I'm sure he won't mind, here's the relevant snippet to save people from having to click[1] Paul wrote: > Here?s an example: Recently, we found that the policy was going to > make it impossible for us to develop useful geographic data on > contributions. We can use data like that to develop the infamous ?heat > maps? to show where lots of Fedora work is happening. Those maps have > been absolutely instrumental in our community architecture plans, and > how we devote resources to Fedora worldwide. > > Even though we?re always very careful about aggregating this data so > it?s not tied to individuals, the old privacy policy still prevents > this and many other, similar reasonable uses. We can develop metrics > that are useful not just to the Board, or FESCo, but also Ambassadors, > Marketing, and other groups. These are all our fellow contributors > whom we already trust, and with whom we share our account system. > > Moreover, some of this data is intended to be public already ? data > like your Fedora Account System (FAS) account name and email; or the > fact that you used it to commit a specfile patch; or the fact that you > uploaded that patch from a certain IP address. So the privacy policy > we?ve been using is completely out of whack with the reality of a > truly open project like Fedora. Jeremy From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 02:40:32 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:40:32 -0400 Subject: New Fedora Privacy Policy In-Reply-To: <1216260111.12841.47.camel@aglarond.local> References: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216259530.13063.0.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1216260111.12841.47.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <1216262432.13063.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 22:01 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 21:52 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 17:47 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > For a while now, we've been butting up against the Red Hat Privacy > > > Policy (which we've been using to cover Fedora). To try to address some > > > of these concerns, I sat down and made a new privacy policy for Fedora > > > > Could you enumerate what those concerns are/were? Not everyone is aware > > of the reasons to write a new policy. > > Paul gave some examples in his blog post earlier > (http://marilyn.frields.org:8080/~paul/wordpress/?p=1063). To save > people some trouble, and as I'm sure he won't mind, here's the relevant > snippet to save people from having to click[1] Thanks. > Paul wrote: > > Here?s an example: Recently, we found that the policy was going to > > make it impossible for us to develop useful geographic data on > > contributions. We can use data like that to develop the infamous ?heat > > maps? to show where lots of Fedora work is happening. Those maps have > > been absolutely instrumental in our community architecture plans, and > > how we devote resources to Fedora worldwide. Yes, seems sane. > > Even though we?re always very careful about aggregating this data so > > it?s not tied to individuals, the old privacy policy still prevents > > this and many other, similar reasonable uses. We can develop metrics > > that are useful not just to the Board, or FESCo, but also Ambassadors, > > Marketing, and other groups. These are all our fellow contributors > > whom we already trust, and with whom we share our account system. > > > > Moreover, some of this data is intended to be public already ? data > > like your Fedora Account System (FAS) account name and email; or the > > fact that you used it to commit a specfile patch; or the fact that you > > uploaded that patch from a certain IP address. So the privacy policy > > we?ve been using is completely out of whack with the reality of a > > truly open project like Fedora. I agree with everything except the specific IP address thing. I really don't get why anyone should care, nor why it intended to be public data already. You can diagnose and divulge geographic information from it, yes, but why does the actual IP itself need to be public? josh From matt at domsch.com Thu Jul 17 03:50:23 2008 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:50:23 -0500 Subject: New Fedora Privacy Policy In-Reply-To: <1216262432.13063.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216259530.13063.0.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1216260111.12841.47.camel@aglarond.local> <1216262432.13063.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20080717035023.GC17232@domsch.com> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:40:32PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > I agree with everything except the specific IP address thing. I really > don't get why anyone should care, nor why it intended to be public data > already. You can diagnose and divulge geographic information from it, > yes, but why does the actual IP itself need to be public? because enough tools collect an IP address of the connection they're talking to that it would be difficult to prevent that data from becoming public. It's often in the Received headers of email messages for example. We're going through this with the whole mirror security thing. The only thing we can't prevent is a mirror getting to see the IP address of the client that is connecting to it (without the client using something like Tor). -Matt From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 07:49:39 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:49:39 +0200 Subject: New Fedora Privacy Policy In-Reply-To: <1216262432.13063.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1216259530.13063.0.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <1216260111.12841.47.camel@aglarond.local> <1216262432.13063.11.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <7f692fec0807170049j58119ae6tcb2a3d6ef31da3e2@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:40 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > I agree with everything except the specific IP address thing. I really > don't get why anyone should care, nor why it intended to be public data > already. You can diagnose and divulge geographic information from it, > yes, but why does the actual IP itself need to be public? I'm not sure IP addresses need to be 100% public either, but having a clear policy about that helps Smolt out. It's nice to have some text I can copy and paste when people ask about every level of privacy involved in Smolt, and the storage and display of IP addresses is the one thing that is out of my control. -Yaakov From notting at redhat.com Thu Jul 17 13:58:19 2008 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:58:19 -0400 Subject: New Fedora Privacy Policy In-Reply-To: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080717135819.GA22085@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said: > Here it is for you folks to look over: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/PrivacyPolicyDraft ... If you wish for this information to be kept private, you can opt-out of displaying this information publicly in your Fedora Account Preferences. If you choose to opt-out, Fedora will still have access to this information, but it will not be displayed to others, and will be considered Private. ... Is that really practical for 1) account name 2) e-mail address? I'm not seeing how we can get out of the account name being public, at least. Bill From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Jul 17 14:19:53 2008 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:19:53 -0400 Subject: New Fedora Privacy Policy In-Reply-To: <20080717135819.GA22085@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <1216244870.6118.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080717135819.GA22085@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1216304393.6118.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 09:58 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said: > > Here it is for you folks to look over: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/PrivacyPolicyDraft > > ... > If you wish for this information to be kept private, you can opt-out of > displaying this information publicly in your Fedora Account Preferences. > If you choose to opt-out, Fedora will still have access to this information, > but it will not be displayed to others, and will be considered Private. > ... > > Is that really practical for 1) account name 2) e-mail address? I'm > not seeing how we can get out of the account name being public, at > least. That's a good point, I've pulled account name out of the list. It isn't a personal identifier, so we don't need to list it there. Email address refers to the email address you give us, not the username at fedoraproject.org one. ~spot From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Jul 17 16:21:36 2008 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:21:36 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-15 Message-ID: <487F7190.907@redhat.com> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15 == Roll Call == Attendees: John Poelstra, Matt Domsch, Paul Frields, Jef Spaleta, Seth Vidal, Harald Hoyer, Jesse Keating, Karsten Wade, Chris Tyler, Spot Callaway, Bill Nottingham == Mingw == * Cross compiling certain applications for Windows * Board is considering from a perspective of overall affect on Fedora Project ** Leave technical details and implementation to FESCo * Fedora should be in support of furthering open source software even if it doesn't run on Linux ** How far should this be taken? ** Special casing each new instance of cross compiling * Board supports such an effort as long as it is self contained and separated from the main package respository * Board expresses concern on potential future resource issues ACTIONS: # Ask SIG to fill out request for resources with Infrastructure # Karsten to start a new thread on fedora-advisory-board concerning trademarks == Release Stability == * Some board members are concerned that too many updates are being made to our stable releases ACTIONS: * Board request more information from FESCo on the following: *# Statistics from bodhi about the number updates and bugs fixed *# Regression statistics from bugzilla *# Is there a policy against updating shared library versions in stable releases? From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 17:21:29 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:21:29 -0800 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-15 In-Reply-To: <487F7190.907@redhat.com> References: <487F7190.907@redhat.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910807171021t391e665eg3b47c734de806412@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:21 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > == Mingw == I'm going to editorialize a little and reorder the bullets in doing so. > * Board supports such an effort as long as it is self contained and > separated from the main package respository > ** Leave technical details and implementation to FESCo >From a broad Project policy perspective we think that cross-compiling is a new and different enough concept to separated out from the main repository offering as a new subproject endeavor. How exactly that is done, is something we want FESCo to take up. The Board is deliberately avoiding making specific implementation choices, but we did talk through enough of the possibilities so I was confident that this can be implemented without asking anyone to do the impossible with the available infrastructure. > * Fedora should be in support of furthering open source software even if it > doesn't run on Linux > ** How far should this be taken? FESCo also has a mandate to build policy associated with the packaging of the cross-compiled libraries. And while the Board didn't make the mandate, I have a personal expectation that the packaging policies concerning cross-compiled libraries and applications will put a strong emphasis on requiring natively built versions of anything in the main repository before it can be considered for cross-compiling in the new mingw construct whatever it looks like. We have a long term interest in making sure we focus primarily on native libraries and applications. And while we don't have to be exclusive about it.. we must not undermine that focus as it relates to our primary project objective. My personal line is drawn thusly: If it can't be built natively for our distribution, then it can't be built in our buildsystem. If FESCo decides differently, I as a Board member would need to understand why. > ** Special casing each new instance of cross compiling > * Board expresses concern on potential future resource issues We can look at what is before us with mingw both narrowly and quite broadly. Looking quite narrowly, as to the specific purpose trying to be achieved with the libvirt cross-compiling using the mingw toolset, I don't think anyone has a problem with what is trying to be achieved. Making libvirt available as a technology on Windows will most likely make it easier for people to run Fedora and other linux distributions in real world environments. And as such the Board is comfortable allocating resources for that very narrow purpose. But looking more broadly, its far less clear that a resource allocation of existing project resources to enable a broad collection of cross-compiled items makes sense from a resource allocation point of view. Compared to everything else we could be doing, and aren't providing resources for.. including native secondary arch work going on in the community right now...we aren't able to justify providing all the hosting and cpu time to open up a general purpose mingw cross-compiled repository. The compromise here is to create the policy and process structure that is generally applicable to mingw cross-compiled payloads and to provide a small amount of space to start the subproject so that the libvirt work can go forward while providing some headroom to grow beyond libvirt based on contributor interest. Since this will be an explicitly constrained space, I fully expect the submission process to this structure to be more demanding in response to enforced scarcity of hosting resources. The reality is, community members are going to have to bring external resources to the table to significantly extend the reach of this beyond a skeleton development environment needed for the libvirt development. And looking even more broadly...the existence of a process which supports mingw built payloads can not be used to justify any future cross-compiling desires. If another cross-compiler toolchain shows up in Fedora.. it does not automatically mean we are going to follow what we are doing with mingw and provide any resources what-so-ever to accommodate new cross-compiled payloads. Useful cross-compilers may make it in to the main repository as a set of tools, or not, based on existing packaging guidelines. But if anyone wants to use package cross-compiled items as part of this project, we will need to have the same sort of project impact discussion similar to what we are currently having with mingw. > # Ask SIG to fill out request for resources with Infrastructure the mingw SIG is going to have to work with FESCo concerning the implementation details on how to contain and separate the mingw compiled packages into its own corner of our project space. And once there is a plan in place infrastructure will need to allocate resources informed by that plan. > # Karsten to start a new thread on fedora-advisory-board concerning > trademarks I would encourage everyone to read over our objectives page in the wiki again before joining Karsten's thread concerning trademark usage which he'll be starting. If FESCo members or mingw SIG members need clarification as to what is being asked of them, do not hesitate to respond. -jef From clay at brokenladder.com Thu Jul 17 18:03:03 2008 From: clay at brokenladder.com (CLAY S) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:03:03 -0700 Subject: Confusing description of score voting (aka range voting) Message-ID: I just saw this problem: http://davidnielsen.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/i-voted-fesco2008/ I'll bet that would not have happened if the instructions were to rate the candidates from 0-10. The point about giving as many score options as candidates is confusing, and of trivial value. Even a 1-5 rating would be more than sufficiently expressive. People just have to accept that with score voting, you can't necessarily specify every ranking between the candidates. The Bayesian regret still comes out great. Please see => http://rangevoting.org/Why99.html Also, we at the Center for Range Voting would like to analyze anonymous ballot data if possible, as part of our ongoing scientific research into voting methods. These elections are particularly significant because they were contentious. We can't get score voting implemented in real government elections if we can't start by citing real world examples of its use in contentious elections, and so we'd greatly appreciate access to that data. Regards, Clay Shentrup San Francisco, CA -- clay shentrup phone: 206.801.0484 "Iraq? No, YOU rock!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dennis at ausil.us Thu Jul 17 20:54:57 2008 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:54:57 -0500 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-15 In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807171021t391e665eg3b47c734de806412@mail.gmail.com> References: <487F7190.907@redhat.com> <604aa7910807171021t391e665eg3b47c734de806412@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200807171555.04932.dennis@ausil.us> On Thursday 17 July 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 8:21 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > > == Mingw == > > I'm going to editorialize a little and reorder the bullets in doing so. > > * Board supports such an effort as long as it is self contained and > > separated from the main package respository > > > > ** Leave technical details and implementation to FESCo > > > >From a broad Project policy perspective we think that cross-compiling > > is a new and different enough concept to separated out from the main > repository offering as a new subproject endeavor. How exactly that is > done, is something we want FESCo to take up. The Board is > deliberately avoiding making specific implementation choices, but we > did talk through enough of the possibilities so I was confident that > this can be implemented without asking anyone to do the impossible > with the available infrastructure. I would assume the only thing being considered for inclusion here is the compiler tool chain to enable people to cross build apps for windows, im assuming on ia64, i386 and x86_64 since thats where windows can run. I see it no different to the current arm cross compiling toolkit. and of course if we can only use binary blobs for part of it its not ever going to be acceptable in fedora. are you proposing we create software builds for windows? if so the resulting .exe files can live wherever we decide to put them. but they obviously have no place in fedora repositories. > > * Fedora should be in support of furthering open source software even if > > it doesn't run on Linux > > ** How far should this be taken? > > FESCo also has a mandate to build policy associated with the packaging > of the cross-compiled libraries. And while the Board didn't make the > mandate, I have a personal expectation that the packaging policies > concerning cross-compiled libraries and applications will put a strong > emphasis on requiring natively built versions of anything in the main > repository before it can be considered for cross-compiling in the new > mingw construct whatever it looks like. We have a long term interest > in making sure we focus primarily on native libraries and > applications. And while we don't have to be exclusive about it.. we > must not undermine that focus as it relates to our primary project > objective. My personal line is drawn thusly: If it can't be built > natively for our distribution, then it can't be built in our > buildsystem. If FESCo decides differently, I as a Board member would > need to understand why. you should have no expectations of an outcome unless you go through the board and have them mandate something. you can share your opinion but it is to be taken as nothing more. what you write above looks like a thinly veiled threat. though your personal line is fedora policy. nothing can be built that requires something outside of fedora (EPEL is an exception in that we build upon other Fedora based distros) but its all fedora. I personally wish you would cut down the noise that we have seen from you lately. all of the above is just noise. > > ** Special casing each new instance of cross compiling > > * Board expresses concern on potential future resource issues > > We can look at what is before us with mingw both narrowly and quite > broadly. Looking quite narrowly, as to the specific purpose trying to be > achieved with the libvirt cross-compiling using the mingw toolset, I > don't think anyone has a problem with what is trying to be achieved. > Making libvirt available as a technology on Windows will most likely > make it easier for people to run Fedora and other linux distributions > in real world environments. And as such the Board is comfortable > allocating resources for that very narrow purpose. Huh, All we should provide is the tools to enable people like libvirt build there stuff themselves. but they should host the resulting binaries themselves. We dont have release engineering to do windows binary releases. nor do we have hosting space to host them. And i think it would be odd to say to a windows user go over to this fedora place and get your binaries. > > # Karsten to start a new thread on fedora-advisory-board concerning > > trademarks > > I would encourage everyone to read over our objectives page in the > wiki again before joining Karsten's thread concerning trademark usage > which he'll be starting. There should be no fedora trademark usage. the only windows tool i see that we should provide and should have our trademark is the tool that lets you install a fedora livecd to a usb key other than that each project to his own. > If FESCo members or mingw SIG members need clarification as to what is > being asked of them, do not hesitate to respond. Id like clarification on what you think you are doing. to me its seems all you are doing is making noise. -- Dennis Gilmore -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 21:26:41 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:26:41 -0800 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-15 In-Reply-To: <200807171555.04932.dennis@ausil.us> References: <487F7190.907@redhat.com> <604aa7910807171021t391e665eg3b47c734de806412@mail.gmail.com> <200807171555.04932.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <604aa7910807171426x2c8a6007i51b39df554e7f3e0@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > I would assume the only thing being considered for inclusion here is the > compiler tool chain to enable people to cross build apps for windows, im > assuming on ia64, i386 and x86_64 since thats where windows can run. I see it > no different to the current arm cross compiling toolkit. and of course if we > can only use binary blobs for part of it its not ever going to be acceptable > in fedora. are you proposing we create software builds for windows? First, my understanding is that right now... everything so far discussed has not involved any binary blobs. Mingw is a completely open codebase that we can natively compile as a toolset in Fedora. The issue that bubbled up to fab was not whether or not the tool should be allowed in. The issue was whether we should be able to use the tool to build dll payloads to be packaged up as a skeleton development environment for people wanting to do open development over windows. You need to look over the previous mingw/libvirt -devel-list thread and then the resulting fab thread that Axel started for discussion context as to the original motivation to be able to cross-compile enough libraries to ease libvirt client support on windows. My personal summary of the discussions will be skewed towards what I think are important policy questions. But the developers working on the cross-compiling the libvirt and related libraries would be able to speak more directly to their motivations. > if so > the resulting .exe files can live wherever we decide to put them. but they > obviously have no place in fedora repositories. That's sort of where we are now. It's okay to do, and we are pretty sure its not impossible to do with our given infrastructure, the Board has agreed that we can do it, but it should live outside the main repository. > you should have no expectations of an outcome unless you go through the board > and have them mandate something. What? I completely disagree with that. I am personally allowed to have expectations, if my expectations are severely out of alignment then I'm not on the same page and then I, personally, have a communication gap that I need to work on. > you can share your opinion but it is to be > > taken as nothing more. what you write above looks like a thinly veiled > threat. It wasn't meant as a threat. If FESCo ends up coming up to a different conclusion then I need to understand why, so that I can be more effective as a Board member. If I'm not on the same page as FESCo's consensus opinion with regard to this sort of issue.. then there's a deep impendance mismatch with regard to interpreting project objectives that I need to be aware of. though your personal line is fedora policy. nothing can be built > that requires something outside of fedora (EPEL is an exception in that we > build upon other Fedora based distros) but its all fedora. I personally wish > you would cut down the noise that we have seen from you lately. all of the > above is just noise. Yes. I have a personal character flaw to be overly verbose at times. It helps to be reminded to attempt to be succinct. I will make a renewed effort. > Huh, > All we should provide is the tools to enable people like libvirt build there > stuff themselves. but they should host the resulting binaries themselves. We > dont have release engineering to do windows binary releases. nor do we have > hosting space to host them. And i think it would be odd to say to a windows > user go over to this fedora place and get your binaries. I cannot invalidate the resource concerns you bring up. I believe the developers who are pushing the mingw use as a cross-compiler of libvirt have attempted to highlight the value to Fedora in discussions leading up to this Board meeting. In both the fab and -devel-list threads. I doubt I would be better able to make an argument that justifies the resource outlay better than they have. >> If FESCo members or mingw SIG members need clarification as to what is >> being asked of them, do not hesitate to respond. > Id like clarification on what you think you are doing. to me its seems all you > are doing is making noise. I don't know how to respond to this in a way that would not be considered noise. I have a tendency to be even more verbose, when I'm asked to clarify. But if I'm already being overly verbose, isn't he best course of action at that point to just cut my losses and be silent? This riddle will keep my from sleeping this evening. -jef From mspevack at redhat.com Thu Jul 17 21:33:08 2008 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:33:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-15 In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807171426x2c8a6007i51b39df554e7f3e0@mail.gmail.com> References: <487F7190.907@redhat.com> <604aa7910807171021t391e665eg3b47c734de806412@mail.gmail.com> <200807171555.04932.dennis@ausil.us> <604aa7910807171426x2c8a6007i51b39df554e7f3e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > I don't know how to respond to this in a way that would not be > considered noise. I have a tendency to be even more verbose, when I'm > asked to clarify. But if I'm already being overly verbose, isn't he > best course of action at that point to just cut my losses and be > silent? This riddle will keep my from sleeping this evening. [spevack at localhost ~]$ ./jef -vvv (Attempting to inject humor, and not taking sides or offering opinions or anything else. I love you both!) --Max From clay at brokenladder.com Thu Jul 17 21:37:02 2008 From: clay at brokenladder.com (CLAY S) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Confusing description of score voting (aka range voting) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: (resending this since i'm not sure it originally went through - i didn't receive it.) I just saw this problem: http://davidnielsen.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/i-voted-fesco2008/ I'll bet that would not have happened if the instructions were to rate the candidates from 0-10. The point about giving as many score options as candidates is confusing, and of trivial value. Even a 1-5 rating would be more than sufficiently expressive. People just have to accept that with score voting, you can't necessarily specify every ranking between the candidates. The Bayesian regret still comes out great. Please see => http://rangevoting.org/Why99.html Also, we at the Center for Range Voting would like to analyze anonymous ballot data if possible, as part of our ongoing scientific research into voting methods. These elections are particularly significant because they were contentious. We can't get score voting implemented in real government elections if we can't start by citing real world examples of its use in contentious elections, and so we'd greatly appreciate access to that data. Regards, Clay Shentrup San Francisco, CA -- clay shentrup phone: 206.801.0484 "Iraq? No, YOU rock!" -- clay shentrup phone: 206.801.0484 "Iraq? No, YOU rock!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Jul 17 21:44:35 2008 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:44:35 -0800 Subject: Confusing description of score voting (aka range voting) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <604aa7910807171444o5beb387vb6c5dad269e1a4a4@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM, CLAY S wrote: > (resending this since i'm not sure it originally went through - i didn't > receive it.) I saw it the first time. Just an FYI. I talked to a couple in #fedora-admin already about that blog post in an effort to jump start a discussion about changing the UI to reduce confusion. I was told to expect a mock up today with UI improvements. I'll make sure they see your message(s) as well. -jef"not as noisy as seth's blasted voip phone"spaleta From clay at brokenladder.com Thu Jul 17 21:49:41 2008 From: clay at brokenladder.com (CLAY S) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:49:41 -0700 Subject: Confusing description of score voting (aka range voting) In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807171444o5beb387vb6c5dad269e1a4a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <604aa7910807171444o5beb387vb6c5dad269e1a4a4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: awesome. thanks! are they allowing abstentions? e.g. http://rangevoting.org/WhyHalf.html On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 14:44, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:37 PM, CLAY S wrote: > > (resending this since i'm not sure it originally went through - i didn't > > receive it.) > > I saw it the first time. Just an FYI. I talked to a couple in > #fedora-admin already about that blog post in an effort to jump start > a discussion about changing the UI to reduce confusion. I was told to > expect a mock up today with UI improvements. I'll make sure they see > your message(s) as well. > > -jef"not as noisy as seth's blasted voip phone"spaleta > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > -- clay shentrup phone: 206.801.0484 "Iraq? No, YOU rock!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jwboyer at gmail.com Fri Jul 18 02:15:17 2008 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:15:17 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUL-15 In-Reply-To: <604aa7910807171426x2c8a6007i51b39df554e7f3e0@mail.gmail.com> References: <487F7190.907@redhat.com> <604aa7910807171021t391e665eg3b47c734de806412@mail.gmail.com> <200807171555.04932.dennis@ausil.us> <604aa7910807171426x2c8a6007i51b39df554e7f3e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1216347317.12864.18.camel@weaponx> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 13:26 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > you can share your opinion but it is to be > > > taken as nothing more. what you write above looks like a thinly veiled > > threat. > > It wasn't meant as a threat. If FESCo ends up coming up to a different > conclusion then I need to understand why, so that I can be more > effective as a Board member. If I'm not on the same page as FESCo's > consensus opinion with regard to this sort of issue.. then there's a > deep impendance mismatch with regard to interpreting project > objectives that I need to be aware of. This is how it's going to go down. Board (you?): "FESCo, Go mandate policies on cross-compiling" FESCo: "Ok. We need a packaging guideline. FPC, go make the packaging guidelines for cross-compiling toolchains." FPC: "Crap. Add that to the end of the queue."