From mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Jul 1 00:06:34 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:06:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Cross project mailing list In-Reply-To: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> References: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, John Poelstra wrote: > For lack of a better place I picked this list for this message. > > During my time in Fedora I have tried to help improve communication and > coordination between the various teams. I'm finding it increasingly cumbersome > to do this with our current set-up and present mailing lists. Recent examples > include the Release Readiness Meetings, Fedora 11 Retrospective, and the > Zikula (CMS) project. > > I'm not a big fan of creating "yet another mailing list" but I think in this > case it makes sense. Previously I've sent announcements to > fedora-advisory-board (f-a-b) and on other occasions created 8 separate emails > to 8 separate lists so as not to upset those sensitive to cross-posting. I > think f-a-b is the wrong place to make cross distro announcements since its > purpose is for transparent board discussion and the overall direction of the > project. On top of that the name doesn't make sense and is not > self-descriptive. > > What I'd like to do is create a mailing list for the purpose of cross project > communication and coordination. The lead(s) from each team would be > subscribed and anyone else interested release coordination and communication > could also join. This would also be the mailing list where decisions about > whether all the teams are ready for launching a particular test or final > release would be captured. > > I'm still looking for a good name for this mailing list--one that conveys its > purpose. Right now I'm leaning towards "fedora-release" while also looking > for any other good ideas out there. > +1 to a list that's not an 'announce' list but allows for various team leads to be notified of things and generally keep everyone in touch with important goings on, questions, etc. -Mike From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 00:23:00 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:23:00 -0400 Subject: Cross project mailing list In-Reply-To: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> References: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090701002300.GD2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 04:06:37PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > What I'd like to do is create a mailing list for the purpose of cross > project communication and coordination. The lead(s) from each team > would be subscribed and anyone else interested release coordination and > communication could also join. This would also be the mailing list > where decisions about whether all the teams are ready for launching a > particular test or final release would be captured. > > I'm still looking for a good name for this mailing list--one that > conveys its purpose. Right now I'm leaning towards "fedora-release" > while also looking for any other good ideas out there. I'm not a huge fan of fedora-release for the name, as that seems to be too tied to release specific issues whereas cross-team communication should be a continuous on-going thing. Why not call it exactly what you are looking for? The 'fedora-project' list. josh From jonstanley at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 01:44:19 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:44:19 -0400 Subject: Cross project mailing list In-Reply-To: <20090701002300.GD2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> <20090701002300.GD2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > Why not call it exactly what you are looking for? ?The 'fedora-project' list. Well, we're trying to discourage the name 'fedora' in lists, for the reason that new ones are hosted @lists.fp.o, which makes it very obvious what they're in relation to. How about 'project-coordination'? BTW, the bikeshed is blue :) From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 02:19:36 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:19:36 -0400 Subject: Cross project mailing list In-Reply-To: References: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> <20090701002300.GD2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20090701021936.GF2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:44:19PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: >On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> Why not call it exactly what you are looking for? ?The 'fedora-project' list. > >Well, we're trying to discourage the name 'fedora' in lists, for the >reason that new ones are hosted @lists.fp.o, which makes it very >obvious what they're in relation to. > >How about 'project-coordination'? That's fine too. >BTW, the bikeshed is blue :) Yes. I agree. josh From dimitris at glezos.com Wed Jul 1 10:20:39 2009 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:20:39 +0300 Subject: Cross project mailing list In-Reply-To: References: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> <20090701002300.GD2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <6d4237680907010320s3ffe8585w76f8cdd9b8bf8507@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> Why not call it exactly what you are looking for? ?The 'fedora-project' list. > > Well, we're trying to discourage the name 'fedora' in lists, for the > reason that new ones are hosted @lists.fp.o, which makes it very > obvious what they're in relation to. > > How about 'project-coordination'? Sounds good. project-steering also follows our vocabulary. -d -- Dimitris Glezos Founder and Chief Engineer, Indifex Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 12:08:44 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:08:44 -0400 Subject: Reminder: Fedora Board IRC meeting 1700 UTC 2009-07-02 Message-ID: <20090702120844.GC9871@localhost.localdomain> The Board is holding its monthly public meeting on Thursday, July 2, 2009, at 1700 UTC on IRC Freenode. Note this is the first meeting of the newly constituted Board following the post-F11 elections. For this meeting, the public is invited to do the following: * Join #fedora-board-meeting to see the Board's conversation. * Join #fedora-board-questions to discuss topics and post questions. This channel is read/write for everyone. The moderator will voice people from the queue, one at a time, in the #fedora-board-meeting channel. We'll limit time per voice as needed to give everyone in the queue a chance to be heard. The Board may reserve some time at the top of the hour to cover any agenda items as appropriate. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting! -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 13:52:28 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:52:28 -0400 Subject: Cross project mailing list In-Reply-To: <6d4237680907010320s3ffe8585w76f8cdd9b8bf8507@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> <20090701002300.GD2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <6d4237680907010320s3ffe8585w76f8cdd9b8bf8507@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090702135228.GI9871@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 01:20:39PM +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > >> Why not call it exactly what you are looking for? ?The 'fedora-project' list. > > > > Well, we're trying to discourage the name 'fedora' in lists, for the > > reason that new ones are hosted @lists.fp.o, which makes it very > > obvious what they're in relation to. > > > > How about 'project-coordination'? > > Sounds good. project-steering also follows our vocabulary. This is a superb idea, and I won't pollute the discussion further with my own bikeshed paint can. :-) -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From notting at redhat.com Thu Jul 2 16:45:12 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:45:12 -0400 Subject: Cross project mailing list In-Reply-To: <6d4237680907010320s3ffe8585w76f8cdd9b8bf8507@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> <20090701002300.GD2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <6d4237680907010320s3ffe8585w76f8cdd9b8bf8507@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090702164512.GC30611@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Dimitris Glezos (dimitris at glezos.com) said: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > >> Why not call it exactly what you are looking for? ?The 'fedora-project' list. > > > > Well, we're trying to discourage the name 'fedora' in lists, for the > > reason that new ones are hosted @lists.fp.o, which makes it very > > obvious what they're in relation to. > > > > How about 'project-coordination'? > > Sounds good. project-steering also follows our vocabulary. I'd prefer 'coordination', since 'steering' seems to run into the f-a-b charter. Bill (the bikeshed is green?) From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Jul 2 17:05:05 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:05:05 -0700 Subject: Cross project mailing list In-Reply-To: <20090702164512.GC30611@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> <20090701002300.GD2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <6d4237680907010320s3ffe8585w76f8cdd9b8bf8507@mail.gmail.com> <20090702164512.GC30611@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A4CE8C1.5080304@redhat.com> Bill Nottingham said the following on 07/02/2009 09:45 AM Pacific Time: > Dimitris Glezos (dimitris at glezos.com) said: >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> >>>> Why not call it exactly what you are looking for? The 'fedora-project' list. >>> Well, we're trying to discourage the name 'fedora' in lists, for the >>> reason that new ones are hosted @lists.fp.o, which makes it very >>> obvious what they're in relation to. >>> >>> How about 'project-coordination'? >> Sounds good. project-steering also follows our vocabulary. > > I'd prefer 'coordination', since 'steering' seems to run into the f-a-b > charter. > > Bill (the bikeshed is green?) > Thanks everyone your ideas. I'm leaning towards logistics at lists.fedoraproject.org (a tighter version of "project-coordination" :) I'll announce it soon. John From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 17:09:36 2009 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 19:09:36 +0200 Subject: Cross project mailing list In-Reply-To: <4A4CE8C1.5080304@redhat.com> References: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> <20090701002300.GD2279@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <6d4237680907010320s3ffe8585w76f8cdd9b8bf8507@mail.gmail.com> <20090702164512.GC30611@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <4A4CE8C1.5080304@redhat.com> Message-ID: <7f692fec0907021009l6b2c3bf6m5b5d1deb37801160@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/2 John Poelstra : > Bill Nottingham said the following on 07/02/2009 09:45 AM Pacific Time: >> >> Dimitris Glezos (dimitris at glezos.com) said: >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why not call it exactly what you are looking for? ?The 'fedora-project' >>>>> list. >>>> >>>> Well, we're trying to discourage the name 'fedora' in lists, for the >>>> reason that new ones are hosted @lists.fp.o, which makes it very >>>> obvious what they're in relation to. >>>> >>>> How about 'project-coordination'? >>> >>> Sounds good. project-steering also follows our vocabulary. >> >> I'd prefer 'coordination', since 'steering' seems to run into the f-a-b >> charter. >> >> Bill (the bikeshed is green?) >> > > Thanks everyone your ideas. I'm leaning towards > logistics at lists.fedoraproject.org (a tighter version of > "project-coordination" :) Logistics is a word we brought up coordinating the Event Box we're planning for EMEA. I'll try not to bike shed on it, but it does have other meanings too. -Yaakov From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Jul 3 21:09:38 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:09:38 -0700 Subject: logistics list Message-ID: <4A4E7392.8090209@redhat.com> Ihe logistics at lists.fedoraproject.org mailing list has been created to meet the requirements discussed here: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00000.html Anyone is welcome to join the list at: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics and participants are strongly encouraged to use it only for important topics that need to be coordinated across teams. I am also taking the liberty to sign up leads from each the teams that attended the Fedora 11 Release Readiness meetings (assuming they will be the same for Fedora 12) as well as the people who have expressed an interest in helping with or learning more about the Fedora Zikula CMS implementation. Feel free to adjust things by adding or removing yourself. John From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 19:05:58 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:05:58 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-07-09 UTC 1600 Message-ID: <20090709190558.GO3050@localhost.localdomain> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-07-09 == Roll Call == * Board Members: Dimitris Glezos, Paul Frields, John Poelstra, Mike McGrath, Josh Boyer, Matt Domsch, Bill Nottingham, Tom Callaway, Christopher Aillon * Regrets: Dennis Gilmore == Sponsorship follow-up == * Provide guidance as to what people can or cannot get sponsorship for * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-06-11#Status_of_sponsorship_work * Discuss Paul's draft and bannering proposal ** http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/temp/rh-bannering ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Sponsorship * We do have links back to mirrors' organization from the mirror page (built into MirrorManager) * Singular web apps or sites providing banner ads for hosting providers of those particular sites * Dollar values removed from sponsorship levels because dollar values do not always map well to realized value * Need a catch-all for extraordinary services that we want to reward where it may not fit well with existing levels as described ** "Board may reward those services as they see fit" * John asks, "What does the 'substantial input into the performance management process' mean?" ** Paul explains over the course of 7 minutes ** Spot suggests this be elided for now ** too much language-lawyering ** Entire coverage of personnel is probably unnecessary, at least right now ** "If you're interested in delivering man-hours, contact the Board" * ACTION: Paul to revise and resubmit, should be able to close on mailing list == Review of security notification plan == * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-06-11#Security_notification_plan_2 * http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/documents/csi-securitypolicy/ * Excellent job Mike! ** Suggestion to include wording about partner notification ** would like to see individual names/emails removed from policy, replaced by roles (FPL, Legal). See 3.3.1. *** Mike indicated this was done with XML entities and can be changed easily * ACTIONS: ** Paul will present to Red Hat as 1-2 day advance notice, as would be appropriate for any primary sponsor ** Announce on fedora-advisory-board list == gnaughty issue == * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503013 * http://www.redhat.com/mailman/private/fedora-board-list/2009-May/msg00120.html * Summary: ** No strong objections to it remaining in distro, but it would be inappropriate for the default spin ** only registered material objection is the "Teens" category, which advertises itself as something problematic, regardless of what's actually there ** not our responsibility to police content behind the app, anymore than for other downloading apps (firefox, et al.) ** Does not include content of a pornographic or offensive nature, thus, no reason to exclude it (c.f. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content) ** spot: Board reserves the right to restrict which packages are included on the official spins *** In this case, we are leveraging that right and require that gnaughty not be on official spins *** paul: Board is responsible for enforcing trademark policies, and we do not feel that it is necessarily proper to associate this with the Fedora trademarks ((add to policy as it pertains to this issue?)) -- policy could be something as generic as "packages which may be morally objectionable by a majority of our target audience may not be included on a spin which bears the Fedora logo. The Board is the arbiter of packages in this case". I think it's important to not leave this completely open that the Board may randomly dictate package lists (caillon) * RESOLUTION: Spot will lift the FE-Legal hold * ACTION: Paul to make sure Board wiki page includes this responsibility and any others that have been enumerated to date == Fedora target == * Spot proposal ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-06-11#What_is_Fedora ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SpinPriorities ** Spot is trying to call out "Who is Fedora's target audience?" versus "What is Fedora?" ** Target audience on a per-spin level ** That being said, there's still a default spin, and a default target audience *** Lots of discussion ensues *** A counter proposal of positioning Fedora as 'distro-next'; where upstream would go to integrate their new code * Board discussed proposal at great length ** ramifications of defining target audience on a per-spin basis ** where do we get future contributor pipeline for, if we restrict audience? ** Usability is one factor, target audience is another ** Can we focus our discussions into specific questions? * Board agrees we need a single default spin * spot's proposal generally agreeable, caillon to bring his at next meeting * After both proposals are reviewed, focus on list of questions we *can* and *should* answer, acknowledging that "What is Fedora?" is overly broad and misleading. * ACTION: Chris to bring proposal to next meeting == Domain licenses == * Status of letters sent to current users of mark--https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-04-22#Status_of_Trademark_Followup * Pending requests ** Dennis Gilmore: fedoramirror.net and fedorapeople.org *** Mike has already talked to Dennis ** Andy York: fedorageeks.com *** Paul has talked with Andy *** Board to deal with this on ML * ACTION: Mike to work on transferring Dennis's names to Fedora Infrastructure * ACTIONS: Paul to get Board consensus on Andy's domain and move forward from there == List monitors == * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-07-02 * Josh proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jwboyer/HallMonitors ** Acknowledgement to be done on list * Draft revisions to be circulated to list, approval via the mailing list == Next meeting == * TBA, might be collision with MLS conference From chitlesh.goorah at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 21:17:32 2009 From: chitlesh.goorah at gmail.com (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:17:32 +0200 Subject: FEL Spin: Switching to Gnome(desktop ks) Message-ID: <50baabb30907091417l7c8c7b63jf95e580dfa727a4e@mail.gmail.com> Hello there, During the Spin session at FUDCon Berlin, I expressed my intention to switch FEL spin from kde-based to gnome-based. I have already made the necessary changes to FEL's kickstart file. https://fedorahosted.org/spin-kickstarts/changeset/5138977598e9845f53efc8b10e853036e3268fa6 My tests were successful and I am pleased with it. == Reason for the switch == Simple, my laptop (only machine I have) struggles a lot with KDE4. I am a KDE user and even a KDE booth staff for CEBIT 2007 in Germany. If I personally cannot test and qualify the spin before the release, we can't ship it. == What does it mean for the Spin SIG == Nothing particularly as the dependency of the FEL spin is switched to the default Fedora Desktop kickstart. == What does it mean for the User == The users are the only one which will see the difference. But since Fedora Developers spent a lot of resources on the desktop livecd (+ the fedora features) compared to the KDE upstream project, FEL users will benefit with better power management, better boot time, better distribution integration and any items from the fedora feature list. == What does it mean for the spin maintainer ? == Nothing particularly. It is just a one-line change in FEL's ks. Since the dependency is heavily tested by the Fedora QA team, I can focus only on the goals/objectives of FEL. Since, FEL apps are added to comps, it is even easier for me to maintain the spin. https://fedorahosted.org/spin-kickstarts/browser/fedora-livedvd-electronic-lab.ks I am personnally affected by this switch, since I have never used Gnome before. However the objective is not about whether gnome or kde is good, how to focus on the electronic ASIC design methodologies which opensource software can provide. That said, desktop environments such as LXDE and XFCE are automatically discarded for FEL (at least for the next 2/3 fedora releases) since * Fedora XFCE spin's history shows it was either not ready for the official fedora release or not released * Fedora LXDE spin is new and the first official fedora board approved spin will most probably be for F-12. As a spin maintainer, I care a lot about the spin's dependencies. If the dependencies failed, FEL will not be released. I am sorry for any inconvenience that may cause you however if you want to help us, please have a look at this dynamic todo list: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/report/1 I want to thank RexDieter and KevinKofler for their tremendous help since the beginning. Rex worked hard on optimizing KDE before F-11 release, at that time I was already seriously considering the switch. Rex's optimization worked for me and thereby FEL 11 was KDE based. Kind regards, Chitlesh PS: Please do not consider this post as KDE bashing. Our Fedora KDE team are working very hard behind it. From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jul 13 15:22:26 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:22:26 -0400 Subject: Trademark Guidance. Russian Fedora initiative. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090713152226.GN3257@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 06:23:06AM +0200, Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com wrote: > > Dear All, > > Let me introduce myself. My name is Alexey Vasyukov, I work for VDEL (Red Hat > Master Distributor for Russia, CIS and Eastern Europe). And it happened so, > that I was a part of the "Russian Fedora" initiative team from the very > beginning, since it was first time presented by Red Hat on Russian Open Source > Summit in October, 2008. > > Since the initiative was announced when Fedora Trademark Guidance had not been > set finally, there is a number of issues that were solved that moment on "Ok by > Red Hat" basis. Now the Trademark Guidance is complete and we would really like > to discuss all the necessary approvals and license agreements. > > So, let me describe the questions to solve: Hi Alexey, thanks for writing in. I'll try and give appropriate information below, so we can continue the discussion. You and I exchanged email earlier about some of these, and I appreciate you following up with this email. :-) > 1. The name of the initiative itself ("Russian Fedora"). > > The initiative was presented by Red Hat to the Russian Ministry of > Telecommunication under this name. The main goal of that discussion was to tell > the Ministry why it is a bad idea to create own "Russian Linux" and why global > collaboration is much more effective for solving their strategic tasks. > (Official press-release from the Ministry - http://minkomsvjaz.ru/news/xPages/ > entry.7938.html , details in English, for example, -http:// > opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/02/fedora-as-basis-of-russias-operating.html ). > > The initiative is, of course, an informal entity. It has no own legal status. > It is a community project sponsored by VDEL, VNIINS, AjTi and some other > companies. We internally consider it as some kind of "Russian club of Fedora > supporters". This "club" acts, first, as an "umbrella" for local Russian Linux > User Groups and, second, as a "bridge" between the Community and the Ministry. > > As far as we understand the current Trademark Guidance, we need some kind of > license agreement for using name "Fedora" as part of the name of local > initiative. Is it true? What is required from our side as next step? > > If necessary, we can include in the license agreement any reasonable explicit > restrictions like "the name Russian Fedora can be used only to identify the > community initiative and related community projects that are not recognized > legal entities" or whatever you consider necessary. We are completely flexible > here. We really need the name only for community non-profit initiatives > sponsored by a number of different organizations to show both the Community and > the Ministry that these initiatives are related to Fedora. As long as it is understood you are an informal group, there is no need for a trademark license for your group name. I could form a group in my hometown called "Virginia is for Fedora Lovers" and as long as I didn't make that group a legal entity, there would be no need for such a license. So I think this issue you can consider solved. :-) > 2. The name of the website (russianfedora.ru) > > We know current policy regarding community domains. And, we guess, our case > falls into the category https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Local_community_domains# > Self-purchased_domain > > Just to make it clear - we have nothing against using "ru.fedoracommunity.org" > domain but we really can not switch to it just now. The problem is the > initiative was already presented by Red Hat to Russian Ministry of > Telecommunications as "Russian Fedora" (see above). So, we can not just drop > current website domain name - it has pretty strong visibility. > > We would offer to use "ru.fedoracommunity.org" now as synonym for > "russianfedora.ru" and we will try to promote "ru.fedoracommunity.org" as the > main domain name in the future. > > As we understand, in this case we need a license agreement for the domain name > "russianfedora.ru". What is required from our side as next step? We can easily point the "ru.fedoracommunity.org" domain at the existing site, but the Board should also consider this a request for a trademark license for that site. Is there any content at russianfedora.ru now? I can't seem to view any web page at the site, either with "www." or without. I bring this up for two points: 1. The Board will want to know what will be present at this site before granting a license. 2. If that site content doesn't exist already, then are you just as well off using ru.fedoracommunity.org? Where and how is the "russianfedora.ru" site currently being actively promoted? > 3. The logo for the initiative. > > For the moment local initiative has no approved logo and it is really bad - > people can be confused where is world-wide Fedora and where is local "Russian > Fedora" initiative. > > So, we used experience from http://www.projetofedora.org/ as an inspiration and > created two proposed logos. Drafts are in attachment. If possible, we would > like to use the first one as the logo of local "Russian Fedora" initiative > because it was used on the meeting of Red Hat with Russian Ministry of > Telecommunication. Is it acceptable? Do we need specific license agreement for > the logo? I think the first logo might need a small bit of tweaking to satisfy the following usage guideline: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines#Logo_Clear_Space But other than that, I think it's acceptable. You don't need a special agreement for the logo as long as you otherwise follow the logo usage guidelines, and the trademark guidelines on this page that apply in the situations in which you use it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines > 4. Non-software goods. > > For the promotion of the local initiative and global Fedora we would like to > produce different non-software goods (pens, t-shirts, pins, stickers, etc.) > > We do not have a detailed plan just now. The goods are intended to be produced > on demand. Estimated number of good of all kinds - about 200 items per year. Of > course, we are ready to submit design for your approval before producing if > necessary. > > The main question from our side now - which logo is it better to use for the > goods we produce locally? We can use global Fedora logo, it will make the goods > somehow "associated" with world-wide Fedora Project. Or we can use local logo, > it will make the goods somehow "associated" with local Russian Fedora > initiative. Do you have any policy or recommendation? And what is the procedure > to get license for this usage of Trademark? There are two ways to go: 1. If the Russian Fedora logo includes the official Fedora logo, as you requested above, you will still need a trademark license agreement specifically for production of non-software goods. 2. If you decide to instead brand only with your website, such as "russianfedora.ru," this may not be necessary. > One "special case" - we would like to produce DVDs for free shipping to regions > with bad Internet access. DVDs will contain local-specific Remixes (for > example, Fedora Remix adapted for Russian schools). Do we need specific license > for it? You do not need a special license for shipping Fedora Remixes, but you should be aware of several things: 1. A Fedora Remix cannot be called "Fedora," without the word "Remix." You could call it "Russian Fedora Remix," or "Fedora Remix - Russian," or "Horoshah Linux," but not "Russian Fedora." 2. A Fedora Remix cannot use the official Fedora logo, but may use the special Fedora Remix logo we created for this purpose: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Secondary_trademark_usage_guidelines 3. You should also read and follow: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Distributing_combinations_of_Fedora_software_with_non-Fedora_or_modified_Fedora_software Looking forward to hearing back from you -- please feel free to reply here on the list. Thanks again for this email. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From kevin at tummy.com Tue Jul 14 21:41:36 2009 From: kevin at tummy.com (Kevin Fenzi) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:41:36 -0600 Subject: Of test spins and trademarks Message-ID: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> Greetings. I'd like some clarification from the board if possible. I'll use an example of the Xfce spin here, but this would apply to any of the approved spins. - The Xfce Spin was approved by the board to use the Fedora trademark a while ago. So it can use fedora-logos and is an 'official' spin. - If I make a rawhide Xfce spin right now with current rawhide packages that seems to fall under: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Distributing_Fedora_software_2 Which says: "use of the Fedora Trademarks is approved by the Fedora Board." My questions: 1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it? 2. Do I need board approval for any Xfce compose thats not made by rel-eng in an "official" capacity on fedora infrastructure? Or does the approval in 1 work for this? We want to make weekly test releases of a rawhide Xfce spin, do we need to request approval for each? 3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask the Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin? If the answer to those is that approval is needed, does using 'generic-logos' bypass that? And how much would that invalidate our testing as we are not testing the thing that will be composed and shipped. Thoughts? kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jul 14 22:05:39 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:35:39 +0530 Subject: Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> Message-ID: <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> On 07/15/2009 03:11 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > I'd like some clarification from the board if possible. > I'll use an example of the Xfce spin here, but this would apply to any > of the approved spins. > > - The Xfce Spin was approved by the board to use the Fedora trademark a > while ago. So it can use fedora-logos and is an 'official' spin. > > - If I make a rawhide Xfce spin right now with current rawhide packages > that seems to fall under: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Distributing_Fedora_software_2 > > Which says: > > "use of the Fedora Trademarks is approved by the Fedora Board." Since I brought this up to Kevin Fenzi, let me add a concerns I have here: Just in case, a rawhide snapshot of a spin is actually considered pre-approved, What if someone takes Fedora KDE Spin kickstart file, adds the updates repo or worse the rawhide repo and release it as Fedora KDE Spin? Rawhide can be quite broken. One more related use case: Does the test day images released by the QA team covered by the current trademark guidelines. Rahul From kanarip at kanarip.com Wed Jul 15 12:56:15 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:56:15 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> Message-ID: <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:00:53 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 15:41:36 -0600, > Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> >> 1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for >> life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it? > > There is supposed to be a recurring spins process, but it isn't documented > yet. > Off the record, since yes, it is not documented (very well or at all); - all previously approved spins (for Fedora N) go back to status "Incomplete" or "Development" after Fedora N's General Availability and for the development cycle of Fedora N+1 - formally, the spin goes through the entire process again, including "Review by Spins SIG" and including "Trademark approval by Board" - informally, this means that the board would not need to (re-)approve a spin's trademark usage, if there's not at all that many changes -after all, it's mostly tweaking the spin a little further, implementing new features in the development cycle of Fedora N+1, etc, rather then rebuilding the spin from the ground up and doing all kinds of nasty changes. Now, what is considered a major change or what is considered "too many changes" in order for the recurring trademark approval to need to pass the board once more, is not set in stone. The Spins SIG obviously has a policy of "when in doubt, ask board". As an example, we have the Electronic Labs spin; it's changing it's base desktop environment from KDE to GNOME (by means of including the -desktop.ks instead of the -kde.ks). The Spins SIG at this moment considers this a major change, but since the basis of the change is still an approved and "permanent" spin, we don't expect the board to require (re-)approval of the spin's trademark usage. Does this make sense and if so, does it make sense to document it as such? If not, what are we overlooking? >> 3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask the >> Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin? I guess the above (or the answers to the above) would also (partly) answer this question. -- Jeroen From stickster at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 20:01:27 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:01:27 -0400 Subject: Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 03:35:39AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 07/15/2009 03:11 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > I'd like some clarification from the board if possible. > > I'll use an example of the Xfce spin here, but this would apply to any > > of the approved spins. > > > > - The Xfce Spin was approved by the board to use the Fedora trademark a > > while ago. So it can use fedora-logos and is an 'official' spin. > > > > - If I make a rawhide Xfce spin right now with current rawhide packages > > that seems to fall under: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Distributing_Fedora_software_2 > > > > Which says: > > > > "use of the Fedora Trademarks is approved by the Fedora Board." > > Since I brought this up to Kevin Fenzi, let me add a concerns I have here: > > Just in case, a rawhide snapshot of a spin is actually considered > pre-approved, What if someone takes Fedora KDE Spin kickstart file, adds > the updates repo or worse the rawhide repo and release it as Fedora KDE > Spin? Rawhide can be quite broken. I would think that adding the rawhide repo to a trademark-approved spin would qualify as a major change. > One more related use case: > > Does the test day images released by the QA team covered by the current > trademark guidelines. It doesn't make sense to me to worry about trademark approval for images that are only going to be in use for a very short time. If their survivability is a concern, I'll ask for QA to ensure they are removed regularly after their usefulness has expired. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 19:56:22 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:56:22 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> Message-ID: <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> Sorry, arriving late to email today. On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:56:15PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:00:53 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 15:41:36 -0600, > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> > >> 1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for > >> life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it? > > > > There is supposed to be a recurring spins process, but it isn't > documented > > yet. > > > > Off the record, since yes, it is not documented (very well or at all); > > - all previously approved spins (for Fedora N) go back to status > "Incomplete" or "Development" after Fedora N's General Availability and for > the development cycle of Fedora N+1 > > - formally, the spin goes through the entire process again, including > "Review by Spins SIG" and including "Trademark approval by Board" > > - informally, this means that the board would not need to (re-)approve a > spin's trademark usage, if there's not at all that many changes -after all, > it's mostly tweaking the spin a little further, implementing new features > in the development cycle of Fedora N+1, etc, rather then rebuilding the > spin from the ground up and doing all kinds of nasty changes. > > Now, what is considered a major change or what is considered "too many > changes" in order for the recurring trademark approval to need to pass the > board once more, is not set in stone. The Spins SIG obviously has a policy > of "when in doubt, ask board". And that seems completely reasonable to me. > As an example, we have the Electronic Labs spin; it's changing it's base > desktop environment from KDE to GNOME (by means of including the > -desktop.ks instead of the -kde.ks). > > The Spins SIG at this moment considers this a major change, but since the > basis of the change is still an approved and "permanent" spin, we don't > expect the board to require (re-)approval of the spin's trademark usage. > > Does this make sense and if so, does it make sense to document it as such? > > If not, what are we overlooking? Yes to both. > >> 3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask the > >> Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin? > > I guess the above (or the answers to the above) would also (partly) answer > this question. As you noted Jeroen, there isn't a hard and fast rule because we think the Spins SIG has the ability to discern what's a major (or arguably major) change. The Board retains the responsibility of approving trademark usage, and could require a resubmission when deemed necessary. But in most cases questions can be resolved here fairly quickly. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 15 21:41:35 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:11:35 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A5E4D0F.7050602@fedoraproject.org> On 07/16/2009 01:31 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > I would think that adding the rawhide repo to a trademark-approved > spin would qualify as a major change. So rawhide snapshots of any release has to request for board approval or rebrand them? > It doesn't make sense to me to worry about trademark approval for > images that are only going to be in use for a very short time. If > their survivability is a concern, I'll ask for QA to ensure they are > removed regularly after their usefulness has expired. Survivability is always a concern once it is public. I can download and redistribute a test image to many people. Rahul From maxamillion at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 21:45:54 2009 From: maxamillion at gmail.com (Adam Miller) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:45:54 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > It doesn't make sense to me to worry about trademark approval for > images that are only going to be in use for a very short time. ?If > their survivability is a concern, I'll ask for QA to ensure they are > removed regularly after their usefulness has expired. The images I'm currently composing for Rawhide Xfce Spin testing only have a shelf life of approximately 1 week and then the image is removed and replaced by a new rawhide compose for more testing, I'm currently hosting them on some web space I have on a server at work but if they need to be transitioned to some Fedora provided resource so that it is seen as "Fedora from Fedora" and not "Fedora from " in the larger scope of things, I would be very happy to do so. -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Jul 15 22:30:38 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:30:38 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <4A5E4D0F.7050602@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E4D0F.7050602@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1247697038.3073.1196.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 03:11 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > > I would think that adding the rawhide repo to a trademark-approved > > spin would qualify as a major change. > > So rawhide snapshots of any release has to request for board approval or > rebrand them? > Something released for the purpose of QA testing should be OK. Something released for end user consumption as a finished product would not be OK and would require board approval. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 15 22:35:45 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:05:45 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <1247697038.3073.1196.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E4D0F.7050602@fedoraproject.org> <1247697038.3073.1196.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A5E59C1.7030105@fedoraproject.org> On 07/16/2009 04:00 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 03:11 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >>> >>> I would think that adding the rawhide repo to a trademark-approved >>> spin would qualify as a major change. >> >> So rawhide snapshots of any release has to request for board approval or >> rebrand them? >> > > Something released for the purpose of QA testing should be OK. > Something released for end user consumption as a finished product would > not be OK and would require board approval. This can be tricky to actually convey. Let's say, I do a rawhide snapshot of the Fedora Live CD for QA. Someone else takes my snapshot and redistributes it to some other users who aren't aware that it isn't a finished product. Rahul From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Jul 15 23:03:50 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:03:50 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <4A5E59C1.7030105@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E4D0F.7050602@fedoraproject.org> <1247697038.3073.1196.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E59C1.7030105@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1247699030.3073.1216.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 04:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > This can be tricky to actually convey. Let's say, I do a rawhide > snapshot of the Fedora Live CD for QA. Someone else takes my snapshot > and redistributes it to some other users who aren't aware that it isn't > a finished product. I don't think you can prevent what others do with your offering. We haven't worried about this in the past, why are we worrying about it now? Are we purposefully trying to find all the hard to answer questions? -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 15 23:28:20 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:58:20 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <1247699030.3073.1216.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E4D0F.7050602@fedoraproject.org> <1247697038.3073.1196.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E59C1.7030105@fedoraproject.org> <1247699030.3073.1216.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A5E6614.1000605@fedoraproject.org> On 07/16/2009 04:33 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 04:05 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> This can be tricky to actually convey. Let's say, I do a rawhide >> snapshot of the Fedora Live CD for QA. Someone else takes my snapshot >> and redistributes it to some other users who aren't aware that it isn't >> a finished product. > > I don't think you can prevent what others do with your offering. In that case, the purpose of why it was offered in the first place cannot be used as a meaningful differentiator on granting branding rights since the purpose will be lost between intermediates engaging in redistribution. We > haven't worried about this in the past, why are we worrying about it > now? Are we purposefully trying to find all the hard to answer > questions? These are hard questions, yes but it is necessary to answer them. Few reasons why. I have noticed a number of use cases that don't seem to be covered well within the current guidelines and none of these have been rebranded and hence strictly speaking trademark violations and I want the guidelines to cover them: * QA team has started test days actively with associated rawhide snapshots * Adam Jackson IIRC posted a rawhide snapshot of the Fedora desktop live cd * Adam Miller recently posted a rawhide snapshot of the Xfce Live CD https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-July/msg00251.html * Others are interested in or already posting daily snapshots. I am interested in knowing for example, whether I can take the Xfce ks in spin-kickstarts, include the updates repo, create a new live cd and still call it Fedora Xfce Spin. Kevin Fenzi is ok with that but I would want to hear other opinions and incorporate consensus into the trademark guidelines to cover all of these explicitly and unambiguously in a way that makes all this possible while avoiding brand dilution. The solution might just be to advocate rebranding in these cases. I am interesting in hearing everyone's thoughts on this. Rahul From mclasen at redhat.com Wed Jul 15 23:44:36 2009 From: mclasen at redhat.com (Matthias Clasen) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:44:36 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <4A5E6614.1000605@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E4D0F.7050602@fedoraproject.org> <1247697038.3073.1196.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E59C1.7030105@fedoraproject.org> <1247699030.3073.1216.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E6614.1000605@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1247701476.1624.5.camel@planemask> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 04:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > * QA team has started test days actively with associated rawhide snapshots > > * Adam Jackson IIRC posted a rawhide snapshot of the Fedora desktop live cd > > * Adam Miller recently posted a rawhide snapshot of the Xfce Live CD I really wonder why you think there is anything wrong with that. People who install and update to rawhide also get all the branded bits, even if what the have on their system does not exactly match any official release. From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 15 23:51:42 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:21:42 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <1247701476.1624.5.camel@planemask> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A5D0133.7070305@fedoraproject.org> <20090715200127.GG8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E4D0F.7050602@fedoraproject.org> <1247697038.3073.1196.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E59C1.7030105@fedoraproject.org> <1247699030.3073.1216.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E6614.1000605@fedoraproject.org> <1247701476.1624.5.camel@planemask> Message-ID: <4A5E6B8E.8030708@fedoraproject.org> On 07/16/2009 05:14 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 04:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> * QA team has started test days actively with associated rawhide snapshots >> >> * Adam Jackson IIRC posted a rawhide snapshot of the Fedora desktop live cd >> >> * Adam Miller recently posted a rawhide snapshot of the Xfce Live CD > > I really wonder why you think there is anything wrong with that. People > who install and update to rawhide also get all the branded bits, even if > what the have on their system does not exactly match any official > release. This isn't about right or wrong. More about what is explicitly covered within the trademark guidelines vs what is not. If it is a common use case and I think it is, it is better to remove any ambiguity from it. Rahul From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Jul 16 17:35:54 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:35:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: New Incident Response Policy Message-ID: In the event that we have another security incident, we all thought it best to have a plan in mind. This is that plan: http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/csi/security-policy/en-US/html-single/#IncidentResponse-Standard http://tinyurl.com/d4g8bl As always plans are ever changing (as is that document) but this is a good idea of what we're going to be going from should badness happen in the future. -Mike From matt at domsch.com Thu Jul 16 18:43:42 2009 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:43:42 -0500 Subject: Trademark Guidance. Russian Fedora initiative. In-Reply-To: <20090713152226.GN3257@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090713152226.GN3257@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090716184341.GA31277@domsch.com> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 11:22:26AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 06:23:06AM +0200, Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com wrote: > > 2. The name of the website (russianfedora.ru) > > > > We know current policy regarding community domains. And, we guess, our case > > falls into the category https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Local_community_domains# > > Self-purchased_domain > > > > Just to make it clear - we have nothing against using "ru.fedoracommunity.org" > > domain but we really can not switch to it just now. The problem is the > > initiative was already presented by Red Hat to Russian Ministry of > > Telecommunications as "Russian Fedora" (see above). So, we can not just drop > > current website domain name - it has pretty strong visibility. > > > > We would offer to use "ru.fedoracommunity.org" now as synonym for > > "russianfedora.ru" and we will try to promote "ru.fedoracommunity.org" as the > > main domain name in the future. > > > > As we understand, in this case we need a license agreement for the domain name > > "russianfedora.ru". What is required from our side as next step? > > We can easily point the "ru.fedoracommunity.org" domain at the > existing site, but the Board should also consider this a request for a > trademark license for that site. > > Is there any content at russianfedora.ru now? I can't seem to view > any web page at the site, either with "www." or without. I bring this > up for two points: > > 1. The Board will want to know what will be present at this site > before granting a license. > > 2. If that site content doesn't exist already, then are you just as > well off using ru.fedoracommunity.org? Where and how is the > "russianfedora.ru" site currently being actively promoted? There is a site now at russianfedora.ru. I can't read Russian, but it looks like a blog aggregator and forums right now. With regard to ru.fedoracommunity.org vs russianfedora.ru. If the longer-term goal is to use ru.fedoracommunity.org as the primary name, but you have already given the russianfedora.ru name to various interested parties, can I suggest using HTTP rewrites? You would set up your site as ru.fedoracommunity.org, with a virtual host russianfedora.ru which simply does HTTP rewrites to change such URLs into ru.fedoracommunity.org URLs. In this manner, the transition from "old name" to "new name" can be seamless, and at some point down the line (a year or two), you can stop purchasing russianfedora.ru. Thanks, Matt From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 01:13:46 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:13:46 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-07-16 UTC 1600 Message-ID: <20090717011346.GA11985@localhost.localdomain> == Roll Call == * Attendees: John Poelstra, Josh Boyer, Mike McGrath, Bill Nottingham, Matt Domsch, Paul Frields, Dennis Gilmore, Dimitris Glezos, Chris Aillon * Regrets: Tom Callaway == Last Meeting == * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-07-09 == Fedora Spin Prioritization == * Tabled for this meeting because proposal is not ready * caillon plans to have it by next Monday for review! == Russian Fedora == * http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00014.html * '''ACTIONS''': Paul to move forward with trademark license matters ** mdomsch to follow up to f-a-b suggesting renames/redirects from russianfedora.ru to ru.fedoracommunity.org * '''RESOLUTION''': Board unaimously approves use of trademark for described purposes == Use of fedoraproject.org email Addresses == * (mdomsch) Trademark policy seems to cover this for the most part ** No association with illegal activity, or association with advertised services ** Board responsible for trademark matters * John asks how using fedoraproject.org email is any different from other mail services like gmail ** mdomsch answers: gmail and the like have terms of service which prohibit illegal activity using a gmail address (as way of comparison) ** dgilmore: fp.o is seen as a private community; whereas gmail is seen as a public service, so activities by its members don't reflect on the private community as much. * caillon: Negative image created by use of the address is not good for Fedora, malicious association == CSI - Security Policy == Published: http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/csi/security-policy/en-US/html-single/ * '''RESOLUTION:''' Issue is closed. == Extended Life Cycle == * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle * FESCo requests that Board discuss this topic because they do not believe it is a "feature" of Fedora 12 * FESCo wants to know if the Board supports the concept of an Extended Life Cycle? * John: what new issues are being raised in the new proposal that differ from the Board's previous discussion? ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2008-11-11 ** Does it fit with Fedora's goals and objectives? *** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview *** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives * Does the Board believe a longer lifecycle is aligned with our objectives? ** In the sense of stretching resources too far, "no" ** Several board members do not think that Fedora has the resources to maintain more releases in parallel (result of extending support lifecycle) * Dimitris: We should make sure that new ideas and improvements to what Fedora is doing are indeed tried. ** Is the cost for Fedora itself high enough to disallow the mounting of the effort under the 'Fedora' umbrella? ** Let's ask exactly what resources the team will need from Fedora itself. * John asks if someone on the Board who is interested in is this issue can work outside of the board meeting to get a clearer list of what ELC wants from Fedora and what exactly they are requesting ** John is concerned about spending multiple meetings on this topic without being clear on what we are discussing or deciding * '''UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:''' ** What is the Board saying "yes" to? ** Trademark usage? ** Fedora infrastructure? ** What is the board responsible for deciding? ** What is FESCo responsible for deciding? ** Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's objectives? *** Most Board members believed the answer to this was "yes," but were willing to entertain the idea to avoid calcification and stay open-minded * '''SHORT SUMMARY''': Initially the board saw no reason to consider this topic beyond the previous discussion (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2008-11-11), however after discussing at length (1 hour), at Dimitris' urging, the Board also wanted to remain open minded to new things that strectch our current perspective and might actually benefit Fedora * '''NEXT ACTIONS:''' Dennis will engage with the Extended Life Cycle (ELC) group by sending an email to f-a-b to obtain more information about their plans and requests from Fedora itself. == Next Meeting Time == * 2009-07-23 @ 16:00 UTC (12 PM EDT) From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Jul 17 01:20:16 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:20:16 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields said the following on 07/15/2009 12:56 PM Pacific Time: > Sorry, arriving late to email today. > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:56:15PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:00:53 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 15:41:36 -0600, >>> Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>>> 1. Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for >>>> life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it? >>> There is supposed to be a recurring spins process, but it isn't >> documented >>> yet. >>> >> Off the record, since yes, it is not documented (very well or at all); >> >> - all previously approved spins (for Fedora N) go back to status >> "Incomplete" or "Development" after Fedora N's General Availability and for >> the development cycle of Fedora N+1 >> >> - formally, the spin goes through the entire process again, including >> "Review by Spins SIG" and including "Trademark approval by Board" >> >> - informally, this means that the board would not need to (re-)approve a >> spin's trademark usage, if there's not at all that many changes -after all, >> it's mostly tweaking the spin a little further, implementing new features >> in the development cycle of Fedora N+1, etc, rather then rebuilding the >> spin from the ground up and doing all kinds of nasty changes. >> >> Now, what is considered a major change or what is considered "too many >> changes" in order for the recurring trademark approval to need to pass the >> board once more, is not set in stone. The Spins SIG obviously has a policy >> of "when in doubt, ask board". > > And that seems completely reasonable to me. > >> As an example, we have the Electronic Labs spin; it's changing it's base >> desktop environment from KDE to GNOME (by means of including the >> -desktop.ks instead of the -kde.ks). >> >> The Spins SIG at this moment considers this a major change, but since the >> basis of the change is still an approved and "permanent" spin, we don't >> expect the board to require (re-)approval of the spin's trademark usage. >> >> Does this make sense and if so, does it make sense to document it as such? >> >> If not, what are we overlooking? > > Yes to both. > >>>> 3. When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask the >>>> Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin? >> I guess the above (or the answers to the above) would also (partly) answer >> this question. > > As you noted Jeroen, there isn't a hard and fast rule because we think > the Spins SIG has the ability to discern what's a major (or arguably > major) change. The Board retains the responsibility of approving > trademark usage, and could require a resubmission when deemed > necessary. But in most cases questions can be resolved here fairly > quickly. > Have the questions in this thread been adequately addressed? If not, what specific questions does the board still need to address and I'll make sure they are carried forward to our queue of issues to discuss. Thanks, John From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Jul 17 03:57:14 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:57:14 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-07-16 UTC 1600 In-Reply-To: <20090717011346.GA11985@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090717011346.GA11985@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1247803034.3012.34.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 21:13 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > * John: what new issues are being raised in the new proposal that > differ from the Board's previous discussion? This time around the proposal seeks to define exactly what updates will be offered (critical security only), as well as attempts to cover /all/ packages for updates of that nature, not just whatever some maintainer feels like doing. To me, that was a big complaint the board had with the previous proposal, and thus worth of a second look. Add to that the proposer seemed willing to create a measurement for success/fail, and set a deadline for meeting success or withdrawing the effort. Again this makes it a better proposal than previous attempts. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 kanarip at kanarip.com Fri Jul 17 10:29:51 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:29:51 +0200 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle Message-ID: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> Hi, First of all, my apologies for the long email. That said, my apologies to Dennis Gilmore for stealing his action item, too. From yesterday's Board Meeting Minutes, it is suggested that the following questions need to be answered: - What is the Board saying "yes" to? - Trademark usage? - Fedora infrastructure? - What is the board responsible for deciding? - What is FESCo responsible for deciding? - Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's objectives? It is also suggested that the current proposal does not add sufficient reason -in comparison to a previous discussion on a proposal apparently perceived to be quite similar- to revisit this topic. The meeting minutes being referred to are: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2008-11-11 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-07-16 Let's re-iterate the concerns from 2008-11-11 first, since they are being referred to as still current in yesterday's meeting; - Infrastructure resources "A year or more out storage space will become a concern." - We're not a year yet, but this is a valid concern and I'm not in a position to address it. - How many builds are anticipated, how will they be distributed, where will bugs be tracked, how long is the trial period? In return to these questions, which to me seem rather random shots in the dark and do not seem like they are in any way related to a Board-level decision on whether this may or may not continue, as they are of a nature for which there are other teams and governance bodies that have been delegated the tasks and responsibilities concerning these questions, by the Board itself no less; . How many builds does the Fedora Project anticipate for rawhide, Fedora 11, Fedora 10? . How many security issues do we anticipate in the 6 month period after Fedora 12 goes what we now call EOL? . How many security fixes do we release in a 6 month period of any given current Fedora release? The latter would be the primary indicator for the number of updates pushed out in a period of 6 months. How many builds that requires is probably a factor 1.X times as much. Given the statistics in Bodhi for current releases, one could (arguably) say that the approximate amount of security updates in 6 months for 1 given release is somewhere around ~250 maybe -if everything released for Fedora current releases has been properly tagged. For the bug tracking question, it seems obvious to me BZ would be used -if technically feasible. - It is unclear who the technical leader and implementer will be. That'd be me. - Concerns about granting Fedora resources and space to a project that will not use the Fedora brand. Since this proposal *requires* implementation through the Fedora Project proper, this is no longer a valid concern. - Concerns around the haphazardness of package updates and what determines when updates are issued Like said before, the only thing we'll release for EOS releases is security updates. Which security classification(s) that includes and/or excludes needs to be determined, and I hope the Board (or FESCo) has an opinion on what should be the minimal classification for the Fedora Project to feel comfortable with allowing systems to run with just those and lower-classified security issues fixed. - If the core issue being raised by this proposal is extending the length of time Fedora releases are support, that issue should be explored separately This applies to the previous proposal specifically, but is still valid nonetheless. If the Board thinks, rather then allowing a separate SIG to extend the life cycle, the Project is better served with extending the life cycle per default, then so be it. - The board is very unclear if there is real user demand or actual use that warrants providing resources for this effort. I too would love to see the number of hits against MirrorManager for releases that are currently EOL. I'm willing to collect the raw data if necessary (but I have no access and nor should I have), all the way to generating a nice management-type of graph with lines decreasing and decreasing over time. - Encourages the supporters of this proposal to demonstrate the technical viability of this proposal by setting up a self-hosted instance outside of Fedora and engaging a group of interested people to show it can work and generates enough interest and demand. This is how things usually start in Fedora. For example, Fedora Extras when it began. The spirit of this proposal is to do it through the Fedora Project properly. In my perception, and given the past experiences with proposals and initiatives similar to Extended Life Cycle, a requirement for the initiative to succeed is to not require any consumer edge changes to the system (configuration) in order to be able to continuously receive security updates to the extend of 6 months after EOS. Returning to the questions/doubts/concerns in the Board's last meeting; - What is the Board saying "yes" to? You would be saying "yes" to an initiative to increase the use and adoption of the Fedora Linux distribution in corporate desktop environments by facilitating the elimination of one of the major downsides of the Fedora Linux distribution, as perceived from a corporate perspective, possibly resulting in greater corporate participation in the Fedora Project -inherently including development, by allowing said corporate environments a little more breathing time to opt-in on desktop system upgrades by means of providing security updates for 6 months after a release's -what we now call- EOL date. Whether that "yes" includes a full go-ahead or just the willingness to let it develop within the Fedora Project really is up to you. - Trademark usage? I'm not sure what this question entails, but Extended Life Cycle is either going to use the Fedora trademark and the Fedora Infrastructure or it's not going to happen. - Fedora infrastructure? Again I'm unsure what the question entails exactly, but I think I can answer the same as above. Also, on this subject, the amount of all updates released for Fedora 10 (approx. 6 months old) currently is: $ du -sh /data/os/archive/fedora/updates/10/ 113G /data/os/archive/fedora/updates/10/ and the size for currently available updates for Fedora 10 is: $ du -sh /data/os/distr/fedora/updates/10/ 75G /data/os/distr/fedora/updates/10/ Since this includes bugfix and enhancement updates, and Bodhi shows the following ratio of sec. vs. bug. vs. enh. vs. all for Fedora 10: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=F10 I don't really think that we require extremely large chunks of storage. - What is the board responsible for deciding? You are to decide whether this can continue to develop given the same time schedule as a Feature (regardless of whether this is actually a feature or not), meaning that we should be good to go by Feature Freeze. - What is FESCo responsible for deciding? They are the engineering steering committee and so maybe they are responsible for deciding whatever has to do with the engineering side of things; . minimal security classification level to provide security updates for? . policies, procedures and technicalities? - CVS, CVS ACLs icw. PackageDB, koji, mash, bodhi, bugzilla, mirrormanager, ... . minimal responsiveness on security issues published, . which security issue trackers to track minimally, . what happens/should happen if we can't backport a security fix - what kind of version bumps would we be allowed to do? - how to handle the dependency chain for said version bump? - Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's objectives? If you take into account the potentially increased participation of corporate consumers in the Fedora Project -which we can not simply guess-, then in the light of the Fedora Project objectives it becomes the traditional "taking a step backwards in order to move forward". Thank you, Looking forward to continue the conversation in constructive ways, Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Jul 17 14:25:55 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:55:55 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> On 07/17/2009 06:50 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > Have the questions in this thread been adequately addressed? If not, > what specific questions does the board still need to address and I'll > make sure they are carried forward to our queue of issues to discuss. They have not been https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00025.html Also it would be useful if the board used a tracker like FESCo so rest of us can follow the agenda. Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sun Jul 19 17:37:34 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:07:34 +0530 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-07-16 UTC 1600 In-Reply-To: <20090717011346.GA11985@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090717011346.GA11985@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A6359DE.7040202@fedoraproject.org> On 07/17/2009 06:43 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > ** Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's objectives? This is perhaps the key question to this whole conversation and I think it is important to note here that the question on Fedora's audience seems still open to the board. http://lwn.net/Articles/341290/ There are atleast two users here claiming that it doesn't fit the Fedora objectives and I think that is to a good extend, true. The objectives however are not something written in stone nor is the community around Fedora. The amount of occasions a similar idea or proposal has been put forward suggests there there is definitely community interest in this. I am not sure whether there is enough of a interest in people volunteering to drive this proposal forward. There are only a very small number of people signed up at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Interested_People I did not because it benefits me in any way but because I really do want to understand what the work actually is over a period of time and see for myself if the cost is worth the benefit. I suggest that the board approve the infrastructure request and let the community succeed or fail on its own goals rather than refuse to provide infrastructure and therefore adding a very substantial barrier to entry for interested contributors. The rise in interest in EPEL after the move to Koji and Bodhi suggests that even a different infrastructure is a major barrier even for seasoned contributors. If it was just pushing more updates in a existing branch and if users can continue getting updates for a longer time without doing anything at all, this proposal has a better chance of succeeding. Rahul From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Jul 20 16:27:24 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:27:24 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-07-16 UTC 1600 In-Reply-To: <4A6359DE.7040202@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090717011346.GA11985@localhost.localdomain> <4A6359DE.7040202@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1248107244.25689.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 23:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Interested_People > > I did not because it benefits me in any way but because I really do want > to understand what the work actually is over a period of time and see > for myself if the cost is worth the benefit. I suggest that the board > approve the infrastructure request and let the community succeed or fail > on its own goals rather than refuse to provide infrastructure and > therefore adding a very substantial barrier to entry for interested > contributors. The rise in interest in EPEL after the move to Koji and > Bodhi suggests that even a different infrastructure is a major barrier > even for seasoned contributors. If it was just pushing more updates in a > existing branch and if users can continue getting updates for a longer > time without doing anything at all, this proposal has a better chance of > succeeding. While in Berlin, I got a work estimate from the RH Security team on what it would take to watch over all of Fedora and fix any critical security issues. They estimated one full time person. I've relayed that information to Jeroen, and he has stated that there will be at least one person committed to working on this task. The interesting thing here is that unlike other proposals it doesn't necessarily rely upon existing contributors to do something different or extra, nor is it a half hazard approach of "whatever people feel like pushing", nor is it an open ended immeasurable task, Jeroen is willing to setup metrics and a timeline to be measured by those metrics to judge success/fail of the effort. For those reasons, I think it would be worth approving the effort and getting real data on just how many people step up to participate, as well as consume the output and if success/failure can be met. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 01:18:32 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:18:32 -0400 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:29:51PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Hi, > > First of all, my apologies for the long email. > > That said, my apologies to Dennis Gilmore for stealing his action item, too. I haven't seen any responses from other Board members yet, so I'll just leap into the fray and suffer the first slings and arrows. ;-) > From yesterday's Board Meeting Minutes, it is suggested that the > following questions need to be answered: > > - What is the Board saying "yes" to? > - Trademark usage? > - Fedora infrastructure? > - What is the board responsible for deciding? > - What is FESCo responsible for deciding? > - Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's > objectives? [...snip...] > - Infrastructure resources > > "A year or more out storage space will become a concern." - We're not a > year yet, but this is a valid concern and I'm not in a position to > address it. Dennis may be able to shed some light here. > - How many builds are anticipated, how will they be distributed, where > will bugs be tracked, how long is the trial period? > > In return to these questions, which to me seem rather random shots in the > dark and do not seem like they are in any way related to a Board-level > decision on whether this may or may not continue, as they are of a nature > for which there are other teams and governance bodies that have been > delegated the tasks and responsibilities concerning these questions, by > the Board itself no less; One reason for these questions is that some specifics are missing in the feature page that was originally proposed. Thanks for clarifying some of those in this email, but I think there may be more details required for both bodies if they want to make an informed decision. I would like to see all the clarifications recorded in the wiki page for future reference. [...snip...] > - Concerns around the haphazardness of package updates and what > determines when updates are issued > > Like said before, the only thing we'll release for EOS releases is > security updates. Which security classification(s) that includes and/or > excludes needs to be determined, and I hope the Board (or FESCo) has an > opinion on what should be the minimal classification for the Fedora > Project to feel comfortable with allowing systems to run with just those > and lower-classified security issues fixed. The proposal cites the audience for this proposal as including desktops for business users. Therefore it would make sense that the covered package set must not be limited to something like the critical path packages, because desktop use involves more than that. For example, the Firefox package would undoubtedly be used by these consumers. As for the severity issues, I looked at classifications as listed on http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/classification/ and found my personal level of comfort, were I an owner of these desktops, to be coverage for all issues of moderate or higher severity (i.e., moderate, important, or critical impact). [...snip...] > - The board is very unclear if there is real user demand or actual use > that warrants providing resources for this effort. > > I too would love to see the number of hits against MirrorManager for > releases that are currently EOL. I'm willing to collect the raw data if > necessary (but I have no access and nor should I have), all the way to > generating a nice management-type of graph with lines decreasing and > decreasing over time. I would encourage you and Dennis to work together to develop this data, because it would give us a better idea of the size of the audience involved, both in absolute and relative terms. > - Encourages the supporters of this proposal to demonstrate the technical > viability of this proposal by setting up a self-hosted instance outside of > Fedora and engaging a group of interested people to show it can work and > generates enough interest and demand. This is how things usually start in > Fedora. For example, Fedora Extras when it began. > > The spirit of this proposal is to do it through the Fedora Project > properly. In my perception, and given the past experiences with proposals > and initiatives similar to Extended Life Cycle, a requirement for the > initiative to succeed is to not require any consumer edge changes to the > system (configuration) in order to be able to continuously receive > security updates to the extend of 6 months after EOS. In other words, you would rather have this be opt-out than opt-in. > Returning to the questions/doubts/concerns in the Board's last meeting; > > - What is the Board saying "yes" to? > > You would be saying "yes" to an initiative to increase the use and > adoption of the Fedora Linux distribution in corporate desktop > environments by facilitating the elimination of one of the major > downsides of the Fedora Linux distribution, as perceived from a corporate > perspective, possibly resulting in greater corporate participation in the > Fedora Project -inherently including development, by allowing said > corporate environments a little more breathing time to opt-in on desktop > system upgrades by means of providing security updates for 6 months after > a release's -what we now call- EOL date. > > Whether that "yes" includes a full go-ahead or just the willingness to > let it develop within the Fedora Project really is up to you. So you seem to be implying here that by giving these environments more "breathing time" in which they are not required to upgrade to continue receiving updates, the resources saved would be diverted to participation in Fedora. Is that something that you would want to measure as part of this initiative? In other words, is there a benefit returned to Fedora for this proposal that involves higher participation? > - Trademark usage? > > I'm not sure what this question entails, but Extended Life Cycle is > either going to use the Fedora trademark and the Fedora Infrastructure or > it's not going to happen. If this is opt-out and not opt-in, I don't see how it could be otherwise. > - Fedora infrastructure? > > Again I'm unsure what the question entails exactly, but I think I can > answer the same as above. > > Also, on this subject, the amount of all updates released for Fedora 10 > (approx. 6 months old) currently is: > > $ du -sh /data/os/archive/fedora/updates/10/ > 113G /data/os/archive/fedora/updates/10/ > > and the size for currently available updates for Fedora 10 is: > > $ du -sh /data/os/distr/fedora/updates/10/ > 75G /data/os/distr/fedora/updates/10/ > > Since this includes bugfix and enhancement updates, and Bodhi shows the > following ratio of sec. vs. bug. vs. enh. vs. all for Fedora 10: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=F10 > > I don't really think that we require extremely large chunks of storage. I think the storage involved on Koji is considerably higher than these numbers, but I'd yield to the toolies for more information. > - What is the board responsible for deciding? > > You are to decide whether this can continue to develop given the same > time schedule as a Feature (regardless of whether this is actually a > feature or not), meaning that we should be good to go by Feature Freeze. > > - What is FESCo responsible for deciding? > > They are the engineering steering committee and so maybe they are > responsible for deciding whatever has to do with the engineering side of > things; > > . minimal security classification level to provide security updates > for? Earlier you said you wanted the Board's input on this too, and I think the Board should have input into how consumer and contributor expectations are set for something carrying the trademark. > . policies, procedures and technicalities? > - CVS, CVS ACLs icw. PackageDB, koji, mash, bodhi, bugzilla, > mirrormanager, ... > . minimal responsiveness on security issues published, > . which security issue trackers to track minimally, > . what happens/should happen if we can't backport a security fix > - what kind of version bumps would we be allowed to do? > - how to handle the dependency chain for said version bump? These seem reasonable but I think, given the obviously controversial nature of theissue, the Board should be able to examine a proposal with these details fleshed out. > - Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's > objectives? > > If you take into account the potentially increased participation of > corporate consumers in the Fedora Project -which we can not simply > guess-, then in the light of the Fedora Project objectives it becomes the > traditional "taking a step backwards in order to move forward". How do you propose *not* guessing about this potential increase? How do the suggestions I make above for coverage affect the viability of your proposal? Will the group of contributors involved handle moderate and higher impact security issues for all packages that are part of a potentially pretty sizable set, without requiring additional resources from package maintainers who are not involved? I don't think Fedora wants to be the kind of community project that does not re-evaluate its position over the course of time. It has been something like 4 years since the Fedora Legacy project ended, and if you have a sizable labor pool you can eliminate one of the main reasons that happened. However, I think all the people in Fedora who are not involved want to have a concrete layout for what will happen to their packages after the end of the primary maintenance period, so the Board is only asking for what needs to be provided anyway -- whether it's provided straight to the Board or to FESCo. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 03:21:45 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:21:45 -0700 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 21:18 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > It has > been something like 4 years since the Fedora Legacy project ended, and > if you have a sizable labor pool you can eliminate one of the main > reasons that happened. Note, to maintain Critical Security updates, which is essentially what RHEL does once a RHEL release reaches it's maintenance mode, RH Security team estimates that a single full time person can handle the work load. This is a sizable pool when compared to what Fedora Legacy worked with, and Legacy's target was much more broad, and the infrastructure much less helpful. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 dimitris at glezos.com Tue Jul 21 11:24:34 2009 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:24:34 +0300 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-07-16 UTC 1600 In-Reply-To: <1248107244.25689.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090717011346.GA11985@localhost.localdomain> <4A6359DE.7040202@fedoraproject.org> <1248107244.25689.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <6d4237680907210424o3c1e6021ob7274d1c16b42ae1@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sun, 2009-07-19 at 23:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Interested_People >> >> I did not because it benefits me in any way but because I really do want >> to understand what the work actually is over a period of time and see >> for myself if the cost is worth the benefit. I suggest that the board >> approve the infrastructure request and let the community succeed or fail >> on its own goals rather than refuse to provide infrastructure and >> therefore adding a very substantial barrier to entry for interested >> contributors. The rise in interest in EPEL after the move to Koji and >> Bodhi suggests that even a different infrastructure is a major barrier >> even for seasoned contributors. If it was just pushing more updates in a >> existing branch and if users can continue getting updates for a longer >> time without doing anything at all, this proposal has a better chance of >> succeeding. > > While in Berlin, I got a work estimate from the RH Security team on what > it would take to watch over all of Fedora and fix any critical security > issues. ?They estimated one full time person. ?I've relayed that > information to Jeroen, and he has stated that there will be at least one > person committed to working on this task. ?The interesting thing here is > that unlike other proposals it doesn't necessarily rely upon existing > contributors to do something different or extra, nor is it a half hazard > approach of "whatever people feel like pushing", nor is it an open ended > immeasurable task, Jeroen is willing to setup metrics and a timeline to > be measured by those metrics to judge success/fail of the effort. > > For those reasons, I think it would be worth approving the effort and > getting real data on just how many people step up to participate, as > well as consume the output and if success/failure can be met. I think it's worth trying it out. The success is judged like any other Fedora project: by the success of the team behind the adventure itself. Given the fact that Jeroen has already stepped up in bootstrapping a team and is willing to provide the necessary metrics to show the progress of the team itself, thus reducing the probability of planning for something big only to see it fail miserably in the end, I think we should support the effort. I'll enjoy the fruits too, TBH; at my company we have a couple of legacy desktops which I'd like to delay their update for a few months more. On a more abstract note: Indeed, it might not fit 100% into our First/Features objectives. However, I'd like to see Fedora try new things out. If we keep too focused on our self description, which is created from the existing things we do, we make it harder for change to happen. For me, Fedora isn't so much what we think it is -- it's what our community wants it to be. And if a part of our community wants to try new things out, given that the resources needed won't be unmanageable, we should encourage them to do so. -d -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From tburke at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 12:25:16 2009 From: tburke at redhat.com (Tim Burke) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:25:16 -0400 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 21:18 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> It has >> been something like 4 years since the Fedora Legacy project ended, and >> if you have a sizable labor pool you can eliminate one of the main >> reasons that happened. >> > > Note, to maintain Critical Security updates, which is essentially what > RHEL does once a RHEL release reaches it's maintenance mode, RH Security > team estimates that a single full time person can handle the work load. > This is a sizable pool when compared to what Fedora Legacy worked with, > and Legacy's target was much more broad, and the infrastructure much > less helpful. > > I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth of work to pull off the broader initiative. Right? From gdk at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 12:38:11 2009 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Tim Burke wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 21:18 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> >>> It has >>> been something like 4 years since the Fedora Legacy project ended, and >>> if you have a sizable labor pool you can eliminate one of the main >>> reasons that happened. >> >> Note, to maintain Critical Security updates, which is essentially what >> RHEL does once a RHEL release reaches it's maintenance mode, RH Security >> team estimates that a single full time person can handle the work load. >> This is a sizable pool when compared to what Fedora Legacy worked with, >> and Legacy's target was much more broad, and the infrastructure much >> less helpful. >> >> > I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team role is > to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be addressed. Which > in many cases is different from the devel, releng and test aspects - > necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth of work to pull off > the broader initiative. Right? In the world of RHEL, this would certainly be true -- but in the world of Fedora? What QA/releng work is required to push updates into Fedora currently, after the initial distro has been pushed out? I'm pretty sure it's not much; we just use bodhi to coordinate +1s to packages in the updates testing repo, and that's about the extent of it. This process would not change. --g -- Computer Science professors should be teaching open source. Help make it happen. Visit http://teachingopensource.org. From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 12:58:18 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:58:18 -0400 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090721125818.GJ1753@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 08:38:11AM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Tim Burke wrote: > >> Jesse Keating wrote: >>> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 21:18 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> >>>> It has >>>> been something like 4 years since the Fedora Legacy project ended, and >>>> if you have a sizable labor pool you can eliminate one of the main >>>> reasons that happened. >>> >>> Note, to maintain Critical Security updates, which is essentially what >>> RHEL does once a RHEL release reaches it's maintenance mode, RH Security >>> team estimates that a single full time person can handle the work load. >>> This is a sizable pool when compared to what Fedora Legacy worked with, >>> and Legacy's target was much more broad, and the infrastructure much >>> less helpful. >>> >>> >> I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team >> role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be >> addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and >> test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth of >> work to pull off the broader initiative. Right? > > In the world of RHEL, this would certainly be true -- but in the world of > Fedora? > > What QA/releng work is required to push updates into Fedora currently, > after the initial distro has been pushed out? I'm pretty sure it's not > much; we just use bodhi to coordinate +1s to packages in the updates > testing repo, and that's about the extent of it. This process would not > change. That's pretty much the size of it. The package maintainer shoulders a big part of the burden, and then co-opts the work of other intrepid volunteers to test the packages and get the bodhi karma needed for an update push. I'd assume the latter step doesn't really change for this effort, since it doesn't have to. But many of the current package maintainers are not involved in this effort, so exactly who is taking over the former work, and how it proceeds in an organized fashion, are important questions that must be answered. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From jwboyer at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 13:46:22 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:46:22 -0400 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <20090721125818.GJ1753@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721125818.GJ1753@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090721134622.GJ3312@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 08:58:18AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 08:38:11AM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: >> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Tim Burke wrote: >>> I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team >>> role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be >>> addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and >>> test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth of >>> work to pull off the broader initiative. Right? >> >> In the world of RHEL, this would certainly be true -- but in the world of >> Fedora? >> >> What QA/releng work is required to push updates into Fedora currently, >> after the initial distro has been pushed out? I'm pretty sure it's not >> much; we just use bodhi to coordinate +1s to packages in the updates >> testing repo, and that's about the extent of it. This process would not >> change. > >That's pretty much the size of it. The package maintainer shoulders a >big part of the burden, and then co-opts the work of other intrepid >volunteers to test the packages and get the bodhi karma needed for an >update push. I'd assume the latter step doesn't really change for Karma is not required for an update push. It is done at maintainer's discretion. We, of course, would like maintainers to get multiple positive karma votes before pushing, but that is not feasible for a wide variety of packages. >this effort, since it doesn't have to. But many of the current >package maintainers are not involved in this effort, so exactly who is >taking over the former work, and how it proceeds in an organized >fashion, are important questions that must be answered. I think there is additional effort involved here. The proposal is talking about security updates only for ELC. At the moment, this requires someone from the Fedora Security team to approve them before releng even sees the push request. This is true of current releases as well. So, I don't think there is anything majorly _new_ here. But continuing to do the same things for longer is an increase in effort for a number of teams. How much so and is that worth it is the question. josh From notting at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 14:08:41 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:08:41 -0400 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Greg DeKoenigsberg (gdk at redhat.com) said: >> I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team >> role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be >> addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and >> test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth >> of work to pull off the broader initiative. Right? > > In the world of RHEL, this would certainly be true -- but in the world of > Fedora? Note that also there are likely to be *more* issues to track in Fedora than in RHEL; after all, Fedora is much larger. Bill From dimitris at glezos.com Tue Jul 21 14:14:18 2009 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:14:18 +0300 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Greg DeKoenigsberg (gdk at redhat.com) said: >>> I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team >>> role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be >>> addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and >>> test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth >>> of work to pull off the broader initiative. ?Right? >> >> In the world of RHEL, this would certainly be true -- but in the world of >> Fedora? > > Note that also there are likely to be *more* issues to track in Fedora > than in RHEL; after all, Fedora is much larger. Is it necessary to go all-or-nothing, or is there a smart and simple way to only issue updates for a subset of Fedora's packages (eg. the ones that are shipped on the DVD for example)? -d -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From mmcgrath at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 14:16:25 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:16:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Greg DeKoenigsberg (gdk at redhat.com) said: > >>> I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team > >>> role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be > >>> addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and > >>> test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth > >>> of work to pull off the broader initiative. ?Right? > >> > >> In the world of RHEL, this would certainly be true -- but in the world of > >> Fedora? > > > > Note that also there are likely to be *more* issues to track in Fedora > > than in RHEL; after all, Fedora is much larger. > > Is it necessary to go all-or-nothing, or is there a smart and simple > way to only issue updates for a subset of Fedora's packages (eg. the > ones that are shipped on the DVD for example)? > That sounds confusing to me, if I installed via DVD and install any additional package, how am I to know whether or not my system is secure or not? -Mike From dimitris at glezos.com Tue Jul 21 15:14:43 2009 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:14:43 +0300 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6d4237680907210814j439074e4n5a8eb5b341363319@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> > Greg DeKoenigsberg (gdk at redhat.com) said: >> >>> I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team >> >>> role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be >> >>> addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and >> >>> test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth >> >>> of work to pull off the broader initiative. ?Right? >> >> >> >> In the world of RHEL, this would certainly be true -- but in the world of >> >> Fedora? >> > >> > Note that also there are likely to be *more* issues to track in Fedora >> > than in RHEL; after all, Fedora is much larger. >> >> Is it necessary to go all-or-nothing, or is there a smart and simple >> way to only issue updates for a subset of Fedora's packages (eg. the >> ones that are shipped on the DVD for example)? >> > > That sounds confusing to me, if I installed via DVD and install any > additional package, how am I to know whether or not my system is secure or > not? This is definitely something that needs some thinking. Maybe a notification to the user that, past this date, the following packages you have installed do not automatically receive security updates? This would be useful as a vanilla Fedora feature too, complimenting our EOL fedora-announce email. -d -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From notting at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 15:25:44 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:25:44 -0400 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <6d4237680907210814j439074e4n5a8eb5b341363319@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> <6d4237680907210814j439074e4n5a8eb5b341363319@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090721152542.GB30076@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Dimitris Glezos (dimitris at glezos.com) said: > This is definitely something that needs some thinking. Maybe a > notification to the user that, past this date, the following packages > you have installed do not automatically receive security updates? > > This would be useful as a vanilla Fedora feature too, complimenting > our EOL fedora-announce email. As I recall,this Extended Life Cycle feature is already defined to cover everything, so that wouldn't be necessary. Bill From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 15:53:58 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:53:58 -0400 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <20090721152542.GB30076@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> <6d4237680907210814j439074e4n5a8eb5b341363319@mail.gmail.com> <20090721152542.GB30076@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090721155358.GJ3545@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:25:44AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Dimitris Glezos (dimitris at glezos.com) said: > > This is definitely something that needs some thinking. Maybe a > > notification to the user that, past this date, the following packages > > you have installed do not automatically receive security updates? > > > > This would be useful as a vanilla Fedora feature too, complimenting > > our EOL fedora-announce email. > > As I recall,this Extended Life Cycle feature is already defined to > cover everything, so that wouldn't be necessary. I'm reading here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Detailed_Description I don't see any such definition. I also don't see a definition for the length of time, or issue severity coverage. (The last of these, to be fair, Jeroen explicitly asked us to weigh in on.) Furthermore: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Scope There's an admonition that says, "Note that the following items may only apply to those that opt-in on ELC support." That sounds pretty open-ended too. If Jeroen and the rest of the group signed up on the wiki page are interested in doing this in Fedora, they need to round up those details and put them in the page for consideration. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 16:17:03 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:17:03 -0700 Subject: Requesting a Clear ELC Proposal Message-ID: <4A65E9FF.7070708@redhat.com> I agree with Dimitris that we should be open to considering new ways of doing things and that progress and innovation often happen by getting out of our comfort zones. I also think that the board should be presented with enough information to make an informed decision. An informed decision requires specifics beyond "would the board be opposed to a particular 'idea'?" For me I keep coming back wanting to know exactly what it is that the board is deciding and what information we are using to make that decision. I think https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle is a good start, but the presentation format does not fit the context of the request (which too me is another problem) --https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/180 The board does not review other feature pages that are not deemed features. Why has the board been asked to review this one? This information should be in the ticket when it comes to the board in the future. For your best shot at success (or at least to get my vote) I would suggest the following: o Create a formal proposal (discard the feature page format as it is confusing and doesn't work for this purpose) --the mailing list threads are already tangled and forming conclusions from them is difficult --In other words, create the best situation you can for the board to say "yes." o In the proposal: a) be as specific as possible. This doesn't help the board make a decision: "we seek to extend Fedora's life cycle with a yet to be determined additional period of time" (from the current summary) b) Bullet point the *problems* you believe need to be solved c) Bullet point the *reasons* those problems need to be solved d) Explain how you will *solve* those problems e) Explain the *risks* involved with the proposed solutions f) Explain how you will *mitigate* those risks or what the contingency plans will be g) Explain how the problems that need to be solved are relevant to Fedora's mission and objectives h) Time line for implementing the proposal i) Time line for evaluating the effectiveness of the implementation to determine if it should be continued or canceled. A lot of this information can be extracted from the feature page and is also probably in many of the email threads. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I think this request has a much better chance of being fairly heard and considered if it can be presented in clear straight forward manner. Expecting people to remember all of the back and forth of all the mail threads (on this and other lists), combined with a feature page that isn't a feature page is possibly too much. John From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 16:17:26 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:17:26 -0700 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1248193046.25689.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 08:25 -0400, Tim Burke wrote: > I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team > role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be > addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and > test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth of > work to pull off the broader initiative. Right? > It was assumed that the one person would be generating or cribbing the patches as well. The amount of packages that will see critical security flaws is pretty small, as is the version variance between other Fedora releases that would be affected or other RHEL releases that would be affected. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 16:19:07 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:19:07 -0700 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <20090721125818.GJ1753@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721125818.GJ1753@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1248193147.25689.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 08:58 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > But many of the current > package maintainers are not involved in this effort, so exactly who is > taking over the former work, and how it proceeds in an organized > fashion, are important questions that must be answered. It's the team of people Jeroen is putting together that would take over the work of preparing the build and requesting the update, if the current maintainer does not wish to do it themselves. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 16:20:20 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:20:20 -0700 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1248193220.25689.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 17:14 +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > > Is it necessary to go all-or-nothing, In my opinion yes. What's on the DVD vs not is largely arbitrary, and really doesn't mean anything to a user 13 months after they've done the install. Again take a look at the security definitions of what Critical means, and apply that to the package sets within Fedora. It's not going to be as many updates as people seem to think. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 Tue Jul 21 16:26:45 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:26:45 -0400 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <20090721155358.GJ3545@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> <6d4237680907210814j439074e4n5a8eb5b341363319@mail.gmail.com> <20090721152542.GB30076@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090721155358.GJ3545@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090721162645.GK3312@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:53:58AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:25:44AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> As I recall,this Extended Life Cycle feature is already defined to >> cover everything, so that wouldn't be necessary. > >I'm reading here: >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Detailed_Description > >I don't see any such definition. I also don't see a definition for >the length of time, or issue severity coverage. (The last of these, >to be fair, Jeroen explicitly asked us to weigh in on.) > >Furthermore: >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Scope > >There's an admonition that says, "Note that the following items may >only apply to those that opt-in on ELC support." That sounds pretty >open-ended too. If Jeroen and the rest of the group signed up on the >wiki page are interested in doing this in Fedora, they need to round >up those details and put them in the page for consideration. I spoke with Jeroen about that this morning. He said he was going to rework the wiki page soon. josh From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 16:31:01 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:31:01 -0400 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <1248193220.25689.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> <1248193220.25689.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090721163101.GM3545@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:20:20AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 17:14 +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > > > > Is it necessary to go all-or-nothing, > > In my opinion yes. What's on the DVD vs not is largely arbitrary, and > really doesn't mean anything to a user 13 months after they've done the > install. > > Again take a look at the security definitions of what Critical means, > and apply that to the package sets within Fedora. It's not going to be > as many updates as people seem to think. I didn't think it was a foregone conclusion that this was limited to "Critical" security issues. That's certainly not listed in the wiki page either, and Jeroen asked us for input on what level of security fixes would be appropriate. Doesn't that number increase as one widens that net to include Important and Moderate severity? -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From dimitris at glezos.com Tue Jul 21 16:31:02 2009 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:31:02 +0300 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <1248193220.25689.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> <1248193220.25689.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <6d4237680907210931i170381e6gd7c4a6054e507864@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 17:14 +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote: >> >> Is it necessary to go all-or-nothing, > > In my opinion yes. ?What's on the DVD vs not is largely arbitrary, and > really doesn't mean anything to a user 13 months after they've done the > install. Agreed. > Again take a look at the security definitions of what Critical means, > and apply that to the package sets within Fedora. ?It's not going to be > as many updates as people seem to think. Jeroen, do you have a picture on how many packages these will be? Any other measurable metrics about the added "cost" for Fedora could help dissolve any doubts about the overhead imposed. -d -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 16:50:31 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:50:31 -0700 Subject: Requesting a Clear ELC Proposal In-Reply-To: <4A65E9FF.7070708@redhat.com> References: <4A65E9FF.7070708@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A65F1D7.4020304@redhat.com> John Poelstra said the following on 07/21/2009 09:17 AM Pacific Time: > I agree with Dimitris that we should be open to considering new ways of > doing things and that progress and innovation often happen by getting > out of our comfort zones. I also think that the board should be > presented with enough information to make an informed decision. An > informed decision requires specifics beyond "would the board be opposed > to a particular 'idea'?" > > For me I keep coming back wanting to know exactly what it is that the > board is deciding and what information we are using to make that > decision. I think > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle is a good > start, but the presentation format does not fit the context of the > request (which too me is another problem) > --https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/180 > The board does not review other feature pages that are not deemed > features. Why has the board been asked to review this one? This > information should be in the ticket when it comes to the board in the > future. > > For your best shot at success (or at least to get my vote) I would > suggest the following: > > o Create a formal proposal (discard the feature page format as it is > confusing and doesn't work for this purpose) Just to be clear.....as a wiki page where the canonical proposal can always be found. From jonstanley at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 16:56:19 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:56:19 -0400 Subject: Requesting a Clear ELC Proposal In-Reply-To: <4A65E9FF.7070708@redhat.com> References: <4A65E9FF.7070708@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM, John Poelstra wrote: > ?--https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/180 > The board does not review other feature pages that are not deemed features. > ?Why has the board been asked to review this one? ?This information should > be in the ticket when it comes to the board in the future. The ticket has been updated with the requested actions of the Board, and a link to the discussion in the FESCo meeting. Sorry for being so terse. From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 17:05:28 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:05:28 -0700 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <20090721163101.GM3545@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> <1248193220.25689.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090721163101.GM3545@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1248195928.10888.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 12:31 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:20:20AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 17:14 +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > > > > > > Is it necessary to go all-or-nothing, > > > > In my opinion yes. What's on the DVD vs not is largely arbitrary, and > > really doesn't mean anything to a user 13 months after they've done the > > install. > > > > Again take a look at the security definitions of what Critical means, > > and apply that to the package sets within Fedora. It's not going to be > > as many updates as people seem to think. > > I didn't think it was a foregone conclusion that this was limited to > "Critical" security issues. That's certainly not listed in the wiki > page either, and Jeroen asked us for input on what level of security > fixes would be appropriate. Doesn't that number increase as one > widens that net to include Important and Moderate severity? > Right, sorry, it was my suggestion that they start with Critical, and if the project is successful widen the net to Important and Moderate. Adding those two in definitely increases the load, not by a small amount either, which is why I think it would be inappropriate to shoot for that goal from the beginning, or rather to hold their effort accountable to that level from the beginning. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 21 18:40:16 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:40:16 -0400 Subject: Requesting a Clear ELC Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4A65E9FF.7070708@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090721184016.GU3545@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:56:19PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM, John Poelstra wrote: > > > ?--https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/180 > > The board does not review other feature pages that are not deemed features. > > ?Why has the board been asked to review this one? ?This information should > > be in the ticket when it comes to the board in the future. > > The ticket has been updated with the requested actions of the Board, > and a link to the discussion in the FESCo meeting. Sorry for being so > terse. Thanks for providing this, Jon -- among other things, this also gives the originator/requestor some confidence that they'll be able to tell when the issue has successfully made a transition from FESCo -> Board and then back again if needed. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Jul 21 23:44:22 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:44:22 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> Rahul Sundaram said the following on 07/17/2009 07:25 AM Pacific Time: > On 07/17/2009 06:50 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > >> Have the questions in this thread been adequately addressed? If not, >> what specific questions does the board still need to address and I'll >> make sure they are carried forward to our queue of issues to discuss. > > They have not been > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00025.html > I have opened a ticket for this topic. John From poelstra at redhat.com Wed Jul 22 01:28:19 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 18:28:19 -0700 Subject: fedoraproject.org email lists Message-ID: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> I have a deep interest in bringing greater clarity and focus to the "What is Fedora" topic and bringing it to resolution (it started in January 2009). As a result I went back approximately 1.5 years and read/skimmed all of the board meeting minutes for pertinent topics. Along the way I found some interesting topics. One topic I found that does not appear to have been resolved is standardizing and administering all the Fedora mailing lists in Fedora. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2008-04-29#fedoraproject.org_mail_.282008-01-29.29 To my knowledge this topic has never been fully resolved--in that the Fedora email lists are still spread between the redhat.com and lists.fedoraproject.org domains. 1) Is this still an important issue that should be pursued? 2) If "yes" to #1, what are the next steps? 3) Is anyone currently working on this and if so, who are the owner(s)? 4) Is this really a "Fedora Board" issue? 5) If this is a board issue what is needed from the board? If #4 == "yes" and there is data for #5 I will open a board ticket for this issue. John From notting at redhat.com Wed Jul 22 01:39:34 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:39:34 -0400 Subject: fedoraproject.org email lists In-Reply-To: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> References: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090722013934.GD7485@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: > To my knowledge this topic has never been fully resolved--in that the > Fedora email lists are still spread between the redhat.com and > lists.fedoraproject.org domains. As I understand it, new lists are being created @ fedoraproject.org; old lists are not necessarily being migrated. Bill From ricky at fedoraproject.org Wed Jul 22 01:43:21 2009 From: ricky at fedoraproject.org (Ricky Zhou) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:43:21 -0400 Subject: fedoraproject.org email lists In-Reply-To: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> References: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090722014321.GC16115@alpha.rzhou.org> On 2009-07-21 06:28:19 PM, John Poelstra wrote: > Along the way I found some interesting topics. One topic I found that > does not appear to have been resolved is standardizing and administering > all the Fedora mailing lists in Fedora. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2008-04-29#fedoraproject.org_mail_.282008-01-29.29 > > To my knowledge this topic has never been fully resolved--in that the > Fedora email lists are still spread between the redhat.com and > lists.fedoraproject.org domains. Hey, the last I heard, Dennis Gilmore and Jon Stanley have been working on this issue, they might be good people to ask. Thanks, Ricky -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 01:45:44 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:45:44 -0400 Subject: fedoraproject.org email lists In-Reply-To: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> References: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090722014544.GM3312@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 06:28:19PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2008-04-29#fedoraproject.org_mail_.282008-01-29.29 > > To my knowledge this topic has never been fully resolved--in that the > Fedora email lists are still spread between the redhat.com and > lists.fedoraproject.org domains. > > 1) Is this still an important issue that should be pursued? Depends on who you ask. Personally, not speaking for anyone other than me, I think it's unecessary entirely. > 2) If "yes" to #1, what are the next steps? Create the lists on lists.fp.o and figure out how to migrate everyone without having them scream at you for unecessary churn. (Or work aliases so the @redhat.com lists redirect to list.fp.org or some other mail thing that I know nothing about.) > 3) Is anyone currently working on this and if so, who are the owner(s)? IIRC, Dennis Gilmore was the last "owner". I have no idea if that is still the case. > 4) Is this really a "Fedora Board" issue? See answer to #1 :) > 5) If this is a board issue what is needed from the board? If yes, a declaration of $the_way, either "leave as is" or "migrate all lists". josh From kanarip at kanarip.com Wed Jul 22 13:39:11 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:39:11 +0200 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A67167F.3040405@kanarip.com> On 07/21/2009 04:14 PM, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> Greg DeKoenigsberg (gdk at redhat.com) said: >>>> I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team >>>> role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be >>>> addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and >>>> test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth >>>> of work to pull off the broader initiative. ? Right? >>> In the world of RHEL, this would certainly be true -- but in the world of >>> Fedora? >> Note that also there are likely to be *more* issues to track in Fedora >> than in RHEL; after all, Fedora is much larger. > > Is it necessary to go all-or-nothing, or is there a smart and simple > way to only issue updates for a subset of Fedora's packages (eg. the > ones that are shipped on the DVD for example)? > This is a dead end and is *not* going to happen. -- Jeroen From kanarip at kanarip.com Wed Jul 22 13:41:58 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:41:58 +0200 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <6d4237680907210931i170381e6gd7c4a6054e507864@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <20090721011832.GU4200@localhost.localdomain> <1248146505.25689.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A65B3AC.9040501@redhat.com> <20090721140841.GB27898@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <6d4237680907210714x505a1575pb7e5e0bcafef50c9@mail.gmail.com> <1248193220.25689.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6d4237680907210931i170381e6gd7c4a6054e507864@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A671726.6050808@kanarip.com> On 07/21/2009 06:31 PM, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 17:14 +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote: >>> Is it necessary to go all-or-nothing, >> In my opinion yes. ? What's on the DVD vs not is largely arbitrary, and >> really doesn't mean anything to a user 13 months after they've done the >> install. > > Agreed. > >> Again take a look at the security definitions of what Critical means, >> and apply that to the package sets within Fedora. ? It's not going to be >> as many updates as people seem to think. > > Jeroen, do you have a picture on how many packages these will be? Any > other measurable metrics about the added "cost" for Fedora could help > dissolve any doubts about the overhead imposed. > Like I said before, I anticipate ~250 security updates in 6 months for a current release given the statistics of Fedora 10. That is *all* classifications, if appropriately marked in Bodhi as a security update, not omitting any other security updates by accident (because some sec updates are hidden in upgrades). -- Jeroen From jonstanley at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 15:34:41 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:34:41 -0400 Subject: fedoraproject.org email lists In-Reply-To: <20090722014544.GM3312@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> <20090722014544.GM3312@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> 3) Is anyone currently working on this and if so, who are the owner(s)? > > IIRC, Dennis Gilmore was the last "owner". ?I have no idea if that is still > the case. Dennis and I are "joint owners" on this one. The plan was to "migrate all lists", but that blocks on a few things, which haven't been taken care of due mainly to lack of time and other, more pressing, issues. Add to that when I'm available Dennis doesn't seem to be and vice versa :) Here's what needs to be done: 1) Build frontend SMTP servers. Currently, collab1 is a single point of failure for inbound SMTP (not a gigantic deal, just that mail gets queued on the senders system rather than internally to Fedora). There's also a scalability issue that we're concerned with. 2) Work out new names for lists that don't meet the naming conventions we've set forth for lists (most notably, the words 'fedora' and 'list' should not appear in the name) 3) Work with RHIT to get archives, list members, etc from existing infrastructure. Honestly, there's not much work to do here - maybe two or three solid days of nothing but this. This honestly sounds like a great opportunity for an Infrastructure FAD of a few days - maybe in NYC?? :) (I'm partial, obviously......) From poelstra at redhat.com Wed Jul 22 16:02:47 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:02:47 -0700 Subject: fedoraproject.org email lists In-Reply-To: References: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> <20090722014544.GM3312@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <4A673827.90102@redhat.com> Jon Stanley said the following on 07/22/2009 08:34 AM Pacific Time: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>> 3) Is anyone currently working on this and if so, who are the owner(s)? >> IIRC, Dennis Gilmore was the last "owner". I have no idea if that is still >> the case. > > Dennis and I are "joint owners" on this one. The plan was to "migrate > all lists", but that blocks on a few things, which haven't been taken > care of due mainly to lack of time and other, more pressing, issues. > Add to that when I'm available Dennis doesn't seem to be and vice > versa :) > > Here's what needs to be done: > > 1) Build frontend SMTP servers. Currently, collab1 is a single point > of failure for inbound SMTP (not a gigantic deal, just that mail gets > queued on the senders system rather than internally to Fedora). > There's also a scalability issue that we're concerned with. > > 2) Work out new names for lists that don't meet the naming conventions > we've set forth for lists (most notably, the words 'fedora' and 'list' > should not appear in the name) > > 3) Work with RHIT to get archives, list members, etc from existing > infrastructure. > > Honestly, there's not much work to do here - maybe two or three solid > days of nothing but this. This honestly sounds like a great > opportunity for an Infrastructure FAD of a few days - maybe in NYC?? > :) (I'm partial, obviously......) > Thanks for all the good information. Is it correct to say that this issue is "closed" from a board perspective and the remaining work/issues are the technical implementation that belongs to the Infrastructure team? John From jonstanley at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 16:05:56 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:05:56 -0400 Subject: fedoraproject.org email lists In-Reply-To: <4A673827.90102@redhat.com> References: <4A666B33.9070804@redhat.com> <20090722014544.GM3312@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4A673827.90102@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, John Poelstra wrote: > Is it correct to say that this issue is "closed" from a board perspective > and the remaining work/issues are the technical implementation that belongs > to the Infrastructure team? I didn't ever recall there being a board issue. In what context did this come up? We'd pretty much decided on this approach at FUDCon Boston. If the Board wants us to stand down, then we can, but if not, that's still the plan :) From stickster at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 21:55:55 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:55:55 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090722215555.GS21921@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:44:22PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > Rahul Sundaram said the following on 07/17/2009 07:25 AM Pacific Time: >> On 07/17/2009 06:50 AM, John Poelstra wrote: >> >>> Have the questions in this thread been adequately addressed? If not, >>> what specific questions does the board still need to address and I'll >>> make sure they are carried forward to our queue of issues to discuss. >> >> They have not been >> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00025.html >> > > I have opened a ticket for this topic. I would propose that the trademark should be reserved for the things the Board specifically approves for release, which includes the actual release candidates for test phases up through final GA. For anything else, the Board's approval is required, and the Board should normally not entertain requests for midstream test images. This would put any community member or team that wants to release test images on a level playing field, and erases any confusion by a downstream consumer over whether something is official Fedora. The removal of fedora-{logos,release,release-notes} and substitution of generic-* presents an exceedingly low risk for regressions and any other problems. If any are found, they should be fixed in the distribution, because they are problems that exist for any potential downstream remixer. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Jul 22 22:21:24 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:21:24 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <20090722215555.GS21921@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> <20090722215555.GS21921@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1248301284.2861.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:55 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > I would propose that the trademark should be reserved for the things > the Board specifically approves for release, which includes the actual > release candidates for test phases up through final GA. For anything > else, the Board's approval is required, and the Board should normally > not entertain requests for midstream test images. This would put any > community member or team that wants to release test images on a level > playing field, and erases any confusion by a downstream consumer over > whether something is official Fedora. > > The removal of fedora-{logos,release,release-notes} and substitution > of generic-* presents an exceedingly low risk for regressions and any > other problems. If any are found, they should be fixed in the > distribution, because they are problems that exist for any potential > downstream remixer. Why then would we allow rawhide to be composed each night with the logos? Particularly in the case of the desktop image, the branding is a part of the end user experience and that we specifically want to test during the development at snapshot points and test days. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 stickster at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 23:57:47 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:57:47 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <1248301284.2861.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> <20090722215555.GS21921@localhost.localdomain> <1248301284.2861.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090722235747.GA21921@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 03:21:24PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 17:55 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > I would propose that the trademark should be reserved for the things > > the Board specifically approves for release, which includes the actual > > release candidates for test phases up through final GA. For anything > > else, the Board's approval is required, and the Board should normally > > not entertain requests for midstream test images. This would put any > > community member or team that wants to release test images on a level > > playing field, and erases any confusion by a downstream consumer over > > whether something is official Fedora. > > > > The removal of fedora-{logos,release,release-notes} and substitution > > of generic-* presents an exceedingly low risk for regressions and any > > other problems. If any are found, they should be fixed in the > > distribution, because they are problems that exist for any potential > > downstream remixer. > > Why then would we allow rawhide to be composed each night with the > logos? Particularly in the case of the desktop image, the branding is a > part of the end user experience and that we specifically want to test > during the development at snapshot points and test days. I thought about this a bit more after sending and realized there should be a blanket approval for anything rel-eng releases, including Rawhide. The Board could make exceptions for other purposes too, such as where branding elements need testing. And it's not difficult for a tester to rebrand a distributed image either. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Jul 23 13:37:32 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:07:32 +0530 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <20090722235747.GA21921@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> <20090722215555.GS21921@localhost.localdomain> <1248301284.2861.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090722235747.GA21921@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A68679C.9020702@fedoraproject.org> On 07/23/2009 05:27 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > I thought about this a bit more after sending and realized there > should be a blanket approval for anything rel-eng releases, including > Rawhide. The Board could make exceptions for other purposes too, such > as where branding elements need testing. And it's not difficult for a > tester to rebrand a distributed image either. So, the proposal is this: * Board MUST approve Fedora branding for all Fedora Spins * Rel Eng team has blanket pre-approval from the Board for whatever it releases * Everybody else need to rebrand regardless of how small or big their change is and use the Fedora Remix brand, generic branding or their own. Is that correct? Rahul From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jul 23 16:21:54 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:21:54 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <4A68679C.9020702@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090714220053.GA1423@wolff.to> <929bea7ac6f88ca8302d6cb703b57b59@localhost> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> <20090722215555.GS21921@localhost.localdomain> <1248301284.2861.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090722235747.GA21921@localhost.localdomain> <4A68679C.9020702@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1248366114.2861.77.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 19:07 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > * Rel Eng team has blanket pre-approval from the Board for whatever it > releases I'd like to see this extended for the QA team as well for test days purposes. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 maxamillion at gmail.com Thu Jul 23 16:47:13 2009 From: maxamillion at gmail.com (Adam Miller) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:47:13 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <1248366114.2861.77.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> <20090722215555.GS21921@localhost.localdomain> <1248301284.2861.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090722235747.GA21921@localhost.localdomain> <4A68679C.9020702@fedoraproject.org> <1248366114.2861.77.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > I'd like to see this extended for the QA team as well for test days > purposes. > Just for clarification, if this extension were to be made would my weekly Xfce Spin composes against Rawhide be covered? If not, is there a way for me to request weekly builds from some entity that is covered? -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jul 23 17:24:49 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:24:49 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <20090715195622.GF8801@localhost.localdomain> <4A5FD1D0.8050801@redhat.com> <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> <20090722215555.GS21921@localhost.localdomain> <1248301284.2861.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090722235747.GA21921@localhost.localdomain> <4A68679C.9020702@fedoraproject.org> <1248366114.2861.77.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1248369889.2861.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:47 -0500, Adam Miller wrote: > Just for clarification, if this extension were to be made would my > weekly Xfce Spin composes against Rawhide be covered? > > If not, is there a way for me to request weekly builds from some > entity that is covered? Join the QA team (: -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating -------------- 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 maxamillion at gmail.com Thu Jul 23 18:27:08 2009 From: maxamillion at gmail.com (Adam Miller) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:27:08 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-spins] Of test spins and trademarks In-Reply-To: <1248369889.2861.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090714154136.5abaa5b5@ohm.scrye.com> <4A6089F3.6090605@fedoraproject.org> <4A6652D6.4090508@redhat.com> <20090722215555.GS21921@localhost.localdomain> <1248301284.2861.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090722235747.GA21921@localhost.localdomain> <4A68679C.9020702@fedoraproject.org> <1248366114.2861.77.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1248369889.2861.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > Join the QA team (: > Applied in FAS :) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA <--- I'm already active in those areas but my meeting attendance is lacking :( -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments From Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com Thu Jul 23 21:55:52 2009 From: Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com (Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:55:52 +0400 Subject: Trademark Guidance. Russian Fedora initiative. Message-ID: Dear all, I am sorry a lot for such a long delay with the answers - I had very limited internet access due to vacation. Please, let me answer Paul and Matt with this one letter as long as questions are interconnected. > > As long as it is understood you are an informal group, there is no > > need for a trademark license for your group name. I could form a > > group in my hometown called "Virginia is for Fedora Lovers" and as > > long as I didn't make that group a legal entity, there would be no > > need for such a license. So I think this issue you can consider > > solved. :-) Ok. Thank you a lot for clear explanation. > > Where and how is the > > "russianfedora.ru" site currently being actively promoted? This name is cited in number of off-line official magazines issued this spring after the meeting of Red Hat with Russian Ministry. (If you need a proof - I can try to find them and send you scans.) As long as some of these magazines are issued only once or twice a year (for example, Ministry Newsletter), we would like to keep this domain for at least two "releases" of these magazines. > With regard to ru.fedoracommunity.org vs russianfedora.ru. If the > longer-term goal is to use ru.fedoracommunity.org as the primary name, > but you have already given the russianfedora.ru name to various > interested parties, can I suggest using HTTP rewrites? It is really a good idea. We can do it. It will really help with smooth transition. > > I think the first logo might need a small bit of tweaking to satisfy > > the following usage guideline: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines#Logo_Clear_Space Ok. I see. We will adapt the logo. > > There are two ways to go: > > > > 1. If the Russian Fedora logo includes the official Fedora logo, as > > you requested above, you will still need a trademark license agreement > > specifically for production of non-software goods. > > > > 2. If you decide to instead brand only with your website, such as > > "russianfedora.ru," this may not be necessary. It is clear. We will submit requests for all the goods that will include official Fedora logo. > > You do not need a special license for shipping Fedora Remixes, but you > > should be aware of several things: [snip] It is clear as well. Of course it will be branded "Russian Fedora Remix" and use Fedora Remix logo. And we will do our best to double-check this policy with independent Russian distributors who sell hard-copies of Linux distros (like linuxcenter.ru and others). So, I guess, that is it. From my point of view everything looks solved. :-) As I see, the next practical steps are: - I will contact the actual owner of the russianfedora.ru domain and ask him to execute the agreement asap. - We will jointly take care of "mod_rewriting" russianfedora.ru to ru.fedoracommunity.org. (Please, let us do it in a week or two, after I will be completely back from the vacation.) Best regards, Alexey Vasyukov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 03:30:37 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:30:37 -0400 Subject: Trademark Guidance. Russian Fedora initiative. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090724033037.GR3592@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 01:55:52AM +0400, Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com wrote: > > Dear all, > > I am sorry a lot for such a long delay with the answers - I had very limited > internet access due to vacation. Please, let me answer Paul and Matt with this > one letter as long as questions are interconnected. > > > > As long as it is understood you are an informal group, there is no > > > need for a trademark license for your group name. I could form a > > > group in my hometown called "Virginia is for Fedora Lovers" and as > > > long as I didn't make that group a legal entity, there would be no > > > need for such a license. So I think this issue you can consider > > > solved. :-) > > Ok. Thank you a lot for clear explanation. > > > > Where and how is the > > > "russianfedora.ru" site currently being actively promoted? > > This name is cited in number of off-line official magazines issued this spring > after the meeting of Red Hat with Russian Ministry. (If you need a proof - I > can try to find them and send you scans.) As long as some of these magazines > are issued only once or twice a year (for example, Ministry Newsletter), we > would like to keep this domain for at least two "releases" of these magazines. > > > With regard to ru.fedoracommunity.org vs russianfedora.ru. If the > > longer-term goal is to use ru.fedoracommunity.org as the primary name, > > but you have already given the russianfedora.ru name to various > > interested parties, can I suggest using HTTP rewrites? > > It is really a good idea. We can do it. It will really help with smooth > transition. > > > > I think the first logo might need a small bit of tweaking to satisfy > > > the following usage guideline: > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines#Logo_Clear_Space > > Ok. I see. We will adapt the logo. > > > > There are two ways to go: > > > > > > 1. If the Russian Fedora logo includes the official Fedora logo, as > > > you requested above, you will still need a trademark license agreement > > > specifically for production of non-software goods. > > > > > > 2. If you decide to instead brand only with your website, such as > > > "russianfedora.ru," this may not be necessary. > > It is clear. We will submit requests for all the goods that will include > official Fedora logo. After I talk with Red Hat Legal tomorrow, I should have a clear idea of what paperwork you need in addition to the standard domain license. Let's plan to talk further when you return. > > > You do not need a special license for shipping Fedora Remixes, but you > > > should be aware of several things: > [snip] > > It is clear as well. Of course it will be branded "Russian Fedora Remix" and > use Fedora Remix logo. And we will do our best to double-check this policy with > independent Russian distributors who sell hard-copies of Linux distros (like > linuxcenter.ru and others). > > > So, I guess, that is it. From my point of view everything looks solved. :-) > > As I see, the next practical steps are: > - I will contact the actual owner of the russianfedora.ru domain and ask him to > execute the agreement asap. > - We will jointly take care of "mod_rewriting" russianfedora.ru to > ru.fedoracommunity.org. (Please, let us do it in a week or two, after I will be > completely back from the vacation.) All of this sounds good. When you return we'll talk more to get the paperwork to the domain owner, and the domain rewriting issues handled through the Infrastructure team. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 03:50:08 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:50:08 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-07-23 UTC 1600 Message-ID: <20090724035008.GS3592@localhost.localdomain> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-07-23 == Roll Call == In attendance: John Poelstra, Mike McGrath, Paul Frields, Josh Boyer, Bill Nottingham, Matt Domsch, Tom Callaway, Christopher Aillon, Dimitris Glezos, Dennis Gilmore Regrets: None == Last meeting == https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-07-16 == Russian Fedora Initiative == * LAST STATUS: ** Paul to deliver agreements to responsible parties in RU * UPDATE: ** Paul to first resolve questions with RH Legal about non-software goods licensing == Extended Life Cycle == * LAST STATUS: ** Board needs more clarity on what they're being asked to agree to ** ACTION: Dennis to discuss with Jeroen * UPDATE: ** Open thread on FAB ** Boyer reports Jeroen working on clarifications: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00054.html ** No substantial update to wiki page as of this writing * PROPOSED: ** Nothing further until request for more information answered *** approved == Spin Trademarks == * BACKGROUND: ** Kevin Fenzi asks: *** Is the approval I got a while back for the Xfce spin "good for life" ? Or does it have some expiration date on it? *** Do I need board approval for any Xfce compose thats not made by rel-eng in an "official" capacity on fedora infrastructure? Or does the approval in 1 work for this? We want to make weekly test releases of a rawhide Xfce spin, do we need to request approval for each? *** When changes are made to the spin kickstart, do I need to ask the Board to vet and review them and reapprove the 'new' spin? *** If the answer to those is that approval is needed, does using 'generic-logos' bypass that? And how much would that invalidate our testing as we are not testing the thing that will be composed and shipped. ** Rahul added these questions: *** May rawhide snapshot images carry the Fedora trademarks? If so, in what situations? QA test days? Individual developers? Spin owners? Anyone? * PROPOSED: ** The trademark should be reserved for the things the Board specifically approves for release, which includes the actual release candidates for test phases up through final GA. For anything else, the Board's approval is required, and the Board should normally not entertain requests for midstream test images. This would put any community member or team that wants to release test images on a level playing field, and erases any confusion by a downstream consumer over whether something is official Fedora. The removal of fedora-{logos, release, release-notes} and substitution of generic-* presents an exceedingly low risk for regressions and any other problems. If one is found, that's grounds for bug filing and fixing in the distribution. ** Addenda/clarifications, i.e. additional proposed answers: *** What rel-eng produces is blessed by definition. *** Answers to Kevin's questions, in order: **** 1. Blessed for life unless there's a substantial change. **** 2. Use generic-* as noted above. **** 3. Due to 2., no. **** 4. Use of generic-* is required. Impact is supposed to be negligible. If it's not, behavior is a bug that should be fixed so that remixers are not negatively impacted. *** Answers to Rahul's questions: No in all cases. Use generic-* packages. Regressions caused by this requirement should be reported for upstream resolution in Fedora. * Possible problems: ** If spins are required to put things in spin-kickstarts, shuffling of code when they switch from generic-* to fedora-* as we approach release ** Test days that focus on artwork and branding would require a special exception; ponderous ** Poelstra asks: Are there two issues here? *** perception that a test release would be perceived as final <-- risk seems very low *** dilution of the trademark <-- risk unclear (to poelstra) * New proposal: "The trademark is reserved for spins that the Board has approved. This includes testing versions of these spins such as official Alpha and Beta composes, periodic test composes, and test day images." Kevin's questions: 1. Blessed for life 2. Approval in 1 is sufficient 3. No 4. N/A Rahul's question: Q: Can rawhide images carry the trademark? A: Yes, if they are Rawhide versions for testing based on the approved spins. Otherwise, normal TM guidelines apply. * RESOLUTION: Board unanimously approves new proposal and has answered questions submitted. * ACTION: Paul to revise TM guidelines, in coordination with Legal, and return to Board for final approval. == Move to fp.o email == * BACKGROUND ** https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00062.html * PROPOSED: ** Dennis Gilmore and Jon Stanley own this in their roles as Infrastructure participants. ** There is no extant Board issue so this issue may be closed. RESOLUTION: No further board actions on this topic. It is considered closed. == Next meeting == * PROPOSED: Thu 2009-07-30 UTC 1600 * approved -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFKaS9wrNvJN70RNxcRAoXRAKC7EISkgnJsG5Ee/ooX0LSYDH9HPwCeL8jM U2TCR/wSuo81TaY9fBHl6p4= =dwht -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dennis at ausil.us Thu Jul 23 17:28:11 2009 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:28:11 -0500 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <200907231228.20212.dennis@ausil.us> On Friday 17 July 2009 05:29:51 am Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Hi, > > First of all, my apologies for the long email. > > That said, my apologies to Dennis Gilmore for stealing his action item, > too. Its ok. > From yesterday's Board Meeting Minutes, it is suggested that the > following questions need to be answered: > > - What is the Board saying "yes" to? > - Trademark usage? > - Fedora infrastructure? > - What is the board responsible for deciding? > - What is FESCo responsible for deciding? > - Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's > objectives? Id also like to know how this fits in with Fedoras stated goals. i see that it benefits freedom, but to me it conflicts with being first. its hard to be the leader and innovate when you are supporting old releases. > - Infrastructure resources > > "A year or more out storage space will become a concern." - We're not a > year yet, but this is a valid concern and I'm not in a position to > address it. > > - How many builds are anticipated, how will they be distributed, where > will bugs be tracked, how long is the trial period? > > In return to these questions, which to me seem rather random shots in > the dark and do not seem like they are in any way related to a > Board-level decision on whether this may or may not continue, as they > are of a nature for which there are other teams and governance bodies > that have been delegated the tasks and responsibilities concerning these > questions, by the Board itself no less; they are all aimed at working out what resources will be needed. can the board justifying others to dedicate the resources to this purpose. > . How many builds does the Fedora Project anticipate for rawhide, Fedora > 11, Fedora 10? > > . How many security issues do we anticipate in the 6 month period after > Fedora 12 goes what we now call EOL? > > . How many security fixes do we release in a 6 month period of any given > current Fedora release? > > The latter would be the primary indicator for the number of updates > pushed out in a period of 6 months. How many builds that requires is > probably a factor 1.X times as much. how do we limit to security updates? many people may try and push new releases to all open releases. we also will likely need the support of the security response team. there is no reason to limit who can commit fixes, if a primary maintainer wants to do the work they should be free to. but when a maintainer doesn't want to then someone else needs to step up and do it. but that brings up how do people not interested in supporting there packages for 6 months more let people know? its not something that's very clear for EPEL, which is a separate thing. It will be much muddier for this. We will need some way to do it. > > - Concerns about granting Fedora resources and space to a project that > will not use the Fedora brand. > > Since this proposal *requires* implementation through the Fedora Project > proper, this is no longer a valid concern. > Requiring implementation through fedora then brings up the question. how do you propose that these packages get out? Who will sign them? what key? who will do the releng? will this be a new repo? how will that get added to the system? what is releng's take on this, if we sign with the release key then we need to also have releng push the packages. what is there take on the impact of the time it will take to do pushes since we would have 3 or 4 releases to push at once instead of 2 or 3. > - Concerns around the haphazardness of package updates and what > determines when updates are issued > > Like said before, the only thing we'll release for EOS releases is > security updates. Which security classification(s) that includes and/or > excludes needs to be determined, and I hope the Board (or FESCo) has an > opinion on what should be the minimal classification for the Fedora > Project to feel comfortable with allowing systems to run with just those > and lower-classified security issues fixed. Security updates for what? all packages? or just some subset. tracking each and every one would take 1-2 full time people at a guess. I think you will find people will expect security updates for all packages. it needs to be catered for. > - If the core issue being raised by this proposal is extending the > length of time Fedora releases are support, that issue should be > explored separately > > This applies to the previous proposal specifically, but is still valid > nonetheless. If the Board thinks, rather then allowing a separate SIG to > extend the life cycle, the Project is better served with extending the > life cycle per default, then so be it. I think that If we are going to have some extended support period by default that extends the life-cycle of fedora. How that is implemented is not really a board issue as much as saying Fedora releases will now be 19 months or 25 months or whatever it would end up being. how it would be implemented is up to FESCo. > - The board is very unclear if there is real user demand or actual use > that warrants providing resources for this effort. > > I too would love to see the number of hits against MirrorManager for > releases that are currently EOL. I'm willing to collect the raw data if > necessary (but I have no access and nor should I have), all the way to > generating a nice management-type of graph with lines decreasing and > decreasing over time. I know there are still hits for FC-1 but hits to update the metadata don't mean that people would be applying the updates. sadly some people never update there machines and run what they installed until they replace the hardware. > > - Encourages the supporters of this proposal to demonstrate the > technical viability of this proposal by setting up a self-hosted > instance outside of Fedora and engaging a group of interested people to > show it can work and generates enough interest and demand. This is how > things usually start in Fedora. For example, Fedora Extras when it began. > > The spirit of this proposal is to do it through the Fedora Project > properly. In my perception, and given the past experiences with > proposals and initiatives similar to Extended Life Cycle, a requirement > for the initiative to succeed is to not require any consumer edge > changes to the system (configuration) in order to be able to > continuously receive security updates to the extend of 6 months after EOS. > - Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's > objectives? > > If you take into account the potentially increased participation of > corporate consumers in the Fedora Project -which we can not simply > guess-, then in the light of the Fedora Project objectives it becomes > the traditional "taking a step backwards in order to move forward". Ill also ask will the effort targeted towards extending fedora's life-cycle disappear when the next version of RHEL is released? is this just because RHEL 5 is getting old? Personally I think the costs to do this are quite high, I think that they are much higher than you perceive. Id like to know if the benefits will outweigh those costs. Dennis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com Sat Jul 25 20:02:41 2009 From: Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com (Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:02:41 +0200 Subject: AUTO: Alexey Vasyukov is out of the office Message-ID: I am out of the office until 02.08.2009. ???????, ? ?????????? ? ????? ?? 02.08.09 ? ??? ?????? ? ????? ?????? ?????????. ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ? ??????? ??????????? (+7 495 956 68 95). ? ?????????, ??????? ??????? - - - Dear colleagues, I am out of office until 02.08.09 and my access to e-mail is very limited. Please, contact Andrey Evdokimov (+7 495 956 68 95) for urgent issues. Best regards, Alexey Vasyukov Note: This is an automated response to your message "Re: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle" sent on 7/23/09 7:28:11 PM. This is the only notification you will receive while this person is away. From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 08:33:14 2009 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:33:14 +0200 Subject: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle In-Reply-To: <200907231228.20212.dennis@ausil.us> References: <4A60529F.3060604@kanarip.com> <200907231228.20212.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <7f692fec0907270133x735965a7g3b661a0e4ddd0338@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/23 Dennis Gilmore : > On Friday 17 July 2009 05:29:51 am Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> First of all, my apologies for the long email. >> >> That said, my apologies to Dennis Gilmore for stealing his action item, >> too. > Its ok. > >> ?From yesterday's Board Meeting Minutes, it is suggested that the >> following questions need to be answered: >> >> - What is the Board saying "yes" to? >> - Trademark usage? >> - Fedora infrastructure? >> - What is the board responsible for deciding? >> - What is FESCo responsible for deciding? >> - Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's >> objectives? > Id also like to know how this fits in with Fedoras stated goals. i see that it > benefits freedom, ?but to me it conflicts with being first. ?its hard to be the > leader and innovate when you are supporting old releases. By attracting more users in a safe funnel that encourages people to use Fedora more, we can attract more potential contributors. -Yaakov >> - Would ELC's request go against or detract from meeting Fedora's >> objectives? >> >> If you take into account the potentially increased participation of >> corporate consumers in the Fedora Project -which we can not simply >> guess-, then in the light of the Fedora Project objectives it becomes >> the traditional "taking a step backwards in order to move forward". > > Ill also ask will the effort targeted towards extending fedora's life-cycle > disappear when the next version of RHEL is released? ?is this just because > RHEL 5 is getting old? Personally, i would say yes and no. Yes because RHEL is getting long in the tooth, but that means the people who want an up to date stable distro will have it. From what i understand, the issue on hand with the ELC is that it's to provide a better upgrade path for stable use. You can't upgrade a computer from RHEL to a later version of Fedora without wiping it clean or doing some very hacky things. On the other hand, there is usually a somewhat supported upgrade path from one version of Fedora to another. With more breathing space in the first place, there's more incentive to use Fedora. -Yaakov From kanarip at kanarip.com Mon Jul 27 21:29:35 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:29:35 +0200 Subject: LXDE Spin Approved Message-ID: <4A6E1C3F.6090204@kanarip.com> Hello, The Spins SIG has previously approved the LXDE Spin: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LXDE_Spin Regrettably, no action item was assigned to notify either the Board or the maintainer of this approval in order to request Trademark approval. I take all the blame, but hence I request trademark approval for this spin on behalf of the spin maintainer, our dear Christoph Wickert. Thank you, Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 22:04:20 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:04:20 -0400 Subject: LXDE Spin Approved In-Reply-To: <4A6E1C3F.6090204@kanarip.com> References: <4A6E1C3F.6090204@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <20090727220420.GA27425@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:29:35PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Hello, > > The Spins SIG has previously approved the LXDE Spin: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LXDE_Spin > > Regrettably, no action item was assigned to notify either the Board or > the maintainer of this approval in order to request Trademark approval. > > I take all the blame, but hence I request trademark approval for this > spin on behalf of the spin maintainer, our dear Christoph Wickert. Thanks for the notice Jeroen -- I've added this to our agenda and I think we can possibly handle this before Thursday's meeting. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 12:57:47 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:57:47 -0400 Subject: LXDE Spin Approved In-Reply-To: <20090727220420.GA27425@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A6E1C3F.6090204@kanarip.com> <20090727220420.GA27425@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090728125747.GH24169@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:04:20PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:29:35PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The Spins SIG has previously approved the LXDE Spin: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LXDE_Spin > > > > Regrettably, no action item was assigned to notify either the Board or > > the maintainer of this approval in order to request Trademark approval. > > > > I take all the blame, but hence I request trademark approval for this > > spin on behalf of the spin maintainer, our dear Christoph Wickert. > > Thanks for the notice Jeroen -- I've added this to our agenda and I > think we can possibly handle this before Thursday's meeting. I've proposed to the Board that we'll handle these requests in a "request-default-approved" mode. That is, we expect to see a request for these uses coming to the FAB list, as has been done in the past (just as with this one, and thank you again for sending it). Unless there are objections from any Board member within 72 hours, the usage of trademarks for that spin should be considered approved. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 17:51:40 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:51:40 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads Message-ID: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> One of the issues the Board has been discussing recently is the state of our various download pages for Fedora. This topic springs directly from the process of getting to the heart of Fedora's goals. Along the way we've determined that one of the steps we can take is to improve the clarity of how we present the Fedora distribution. The way many people come into contact with that presentation is through our download site, which needs to provide a first-rate experience for everyone who uses it. This topic clearly falls into the Board's domain, because it's to do not with the production of the Fedora distribution, but rather with the way it's presented, and with the design of one of the essential public-facing pieces of the project. A good, user-centric design must be simple and easy to follow, and provide a route for all users to reach what they want. The most effective route for new users of the website is usually very different than for experienced ones, but all routes must be attractive and effective for the people using them. The experience we currently provide for both these groups on our download site is not terribly attractive or effective, and needs revision. Thanks to some dedicated community members, there was some work done to redesign these experiences in the past, but for a variety of reasons those efforts didn't fully succeed. The Board and I want to see them back on the front burner, so that we are providing the best possible presentation of the many faces of Fedora, whether that presentation is more of an introduction to free software, or intended for experienced users. One of the visual models used by the Community Architecture and me is one in which contributors form the tip of a large pyramid. That pyramid is made up of all the people who use and experience the things that we make in this project. (The most visible and ubiquitous of those is the Fedora distribution itself.) To expand that tip, we strive to do two things: (A) make a bigger pyramid, and (B) make it easy for people to move from the base to the tip (i.e., move from consuming to participating, and then to contributing). A successful redesign of our download site is really concerned with (A) more than (B). The site should help us grow the pyramid from the base up, while also providing ample resources for people who are downloading Fedora with a pre-existing purpose of participating and contributing. A good design has a target audience, and for these different audiences we need different designs. One of them should target new users -- to grow the pyramid from the base up -- and the other should target more experienced or adventurous users. Specifically, we want a central site that is capable of providing more detailed and compelling information about all Fedora spins, and a streamlined, simple download page that presents the default Live spin. The Board's foremost goal is to help Fedora succeed as a contributor-centric project, at times actively leading where necessary. To produce these improvements for Fedora 12, we're asking a small group of people to tackle this problem. This approach is very similar to how any contributor group can stage a Fedora Activity Day, gathering a group with the skills and motivation to identify and solve specific issues. Fortunately, the Fedora Project has clear community leadership already in both the areas of website design (Mo Duffy) and website infrastructure (Ricky Zhou), whom we've asked to participate. The Board will be responsible for developing the requirements for the project here, and will empower them, in accordance with those requirements, to make improvements openly and transparently for the overall benefit of the Project. -- Paul From ricky at fedoraproject.org Thu Jul 30 21:43:06 2009 From: ricky at fedoraproject.org (Ricky Zhou) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:43:06 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads (Websites meeting reminder) In-Reply-To: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090730214306.GF2515@alpha.rzhou.org> On 2009-07-30 01:51:40 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > One of the issues the Board has been discussing recently is the state > of our various download pages for Fedora. This topic springs directly > from the process of getting to the heart of Fedora's goals. Along the > way we've determined that one of the steps we can take is to improve > the clarity of how we present the Fedora distribution. The way many > people come into contact with that presentation is through our > download site, which needs to provide a first-rate experience for > everyone who uses it. This topic clearly falls into the Board's > domain, because it's to do not with the production of the Fedora > distribution, but rather with the way it's presented, and with the > design of one of the essential public-facing pieces of the project. > > A good, user-centric design must be simple and easy to follow, and > provide a route for all users to reach what they want. The most > effective route for new users of the website is usually very different > than for experienced ones, but all routes must be attractive and > effective for the people using them. The experience we currently > provide for both these groups on our download site is not terribly > attractive or effective, and needs revision. Thanks to some dedicated > community members, there was some work done to redesign these > experiences in the past, but for a variety of reasons those efforts > didn't fully succeed. The Board and I want to see them back on the > front burner, so that we are providing the best possible presentation > of the many faces of Fedora, whether that presentation is more of an > introduction to free software, or intended for experienced users. Hey, this would be great to discuss at tomorrow's websites meeting if any of you can make it - it'll be at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-websites on Freenode (unfortunately this is at the same time as the FESCo meeting). For those on fedora-websites-list, the full message that I mercilessly trimmed here is at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg00088.html :-) Thanks, Ricky -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 21:54:34 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 17:54:34 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-07-30 UTC 1600 Message-ID: <20090730215434.GA11522@localhost.localdomain> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-07-30 In attendance: John Poelstra, Matt Domsch, Dimitris Glezos, Josh Boyer, Mairin Duffy, Paul Frields, Bill Nottingham, Tom Callaway, Ricky Zhou, Dennis Gilmore, Christopher Aillon Regrets: Mike McGrath == Last meeting == https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-07-23 == Proposed Agenda == === Website redesign - downloads/spins/torrents === * mo: current site is very helpful for new users, but confusing to more experienced users * paul: current design is a jumble of lots of different things ** No clear instructions or path to spins ** everyone is fighting for the same space ** goal: we want new and experienced users to have an easy way to find what they want **# have some sort of spins property that is attractive and is customizable by spins group that owns it **# want a default page that is comprehensible by anyone (lowest common denominator) * One "default spin" that goes on get.fedoraproject.org * All "other spins" + "default spin" (all equally advertised) go on spins.fedoraproject.org/ * Spot says: We want a URL that is easy for SIGs to use to advertise their Spin Major concerns: * Ideas or specifications for the people we're looking for ** People who are jumping from another distro? ** People jumping from another OS? ** Students? Professionals? Slow internet connections? * aka "target audience" ** Spot: the newest "computer-aware" user ** Chris: if default spin is desktop then site should focus on desktop users *** better way of stating this: The default get-fedora page should target an audience compatible with the default spin ** Bill: slow internet connection does't work well w/ Fedora -- don't target those people *** More sophisticated users (those with Linux experience) will feel comfortable navigating spins.fedoraproject.org ** Paul: not targeting people that need to do lots of after-install tweaking and customization *** not targeting the Gentoo/Linux-from-scratch userbase *** not targeting non-x86 architectures **** should the spins page handle this? (for f12, probably. after that, we'll see) ** Ricky: one challenge is string freezes and not sure how translation will be done if we go the Zikula route *** website is pretty easy to add custom content *** Does not need to be conflated with the CMS right now -- can look at this later * Bill: Do we have the resources to get the spins pages done in time? If not by F12, when? ** Mo: Probably, if we no longer block on the spin *creation* pieces -- there's not a lot of different templates we have to work with to make this happen * Ricky: How is this going to transition to community? ** Paul: The board is setting the requirements and is responsible for the project. The board empowers Design and Websites (represented here by Mo & Ricky) to implement it with the community. If there are conflicts, excessive arguments, disagreements with the requirements -> Board. * Mo Needs: (simple bullets who it is for and who it is not for) *# kind of users we are looking to attract are: *# kind of user we are NOT looking to attract with this page * The crux of making this work well is for the board to specify the "requirements" and for Mo do the "design" If people have objections to the "design" the discussion then centers around whether or not the design meets the requirements. If people critcize the requirements then they will take those up with the board (not with the design). * Make clear what our goals are for setting the requirements of the new design--this will help provide a more productive discussion * Chris: When does Design need the final word on these requirements? ** Mo: In a week, have enough to get started, 3 weeks to have all requirements finalized ** Ricky: Text has to be done by string freeze, but this deadline sounds good for requiremnts. ** Spot: In two weeks, have things finalized on FAB and then hand it back as done. == Next meeting == * PROPOSED: (Public IRC meeting) Thu 2009-08-06 UTC 1600 -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 15:21:35 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:21:35 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> To kick off the requirements development phase, here's my take. As Mo suggested[1], we need to know for whom the front get-fedora page is intended, and for whom it's not. FOR: * People who are somewhat computer savvy, but may be new to Fedora and/or Linux and FOSS in general * People who are not sure what they need to do in order to try Fedora * People who may not understand how to create and use Live media * People who don't know where to find anything other than the default offering (i.e., is there something else available?) NOT FOR: * People who are currently and comfortably using Fedora * People who have pre-specified needs for the Fedora they download * People who know where to find non-default offerings, and want to pick from an a la carte-style or other expanded sort of list -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From maxamillion at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 15:42:42 2009 From: maxamillion at gmail.com (Adam Miller) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:42:42 -0500 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > FOR: > > * People who are somewhat computer savvy, but may be new to Fedora > ?and/or Linux and FOSS in general > > * People who are not sure what they need to do in order to try Fedora > > * People who may not understand how to create and use Live media > > * People who don't know where to find anything other than the default > ?offering (i.e., is there something else available?) > > NOT FOR: > > * People who are currently and comfortably using Fedora > > * People who have pre-specified needs for the Fedora they download > > * People who know where to find non-default offerings, and want to > ?pick from an a la carte-style or other expanded sort of list +1 I think this is a great proposal/brainstorm/whatever and that it's a big misconception that there is a need to cater to the more advanced users as they are going to find their way around even if explanations of things are more verbose or the site has been simplified, and I'd honestly be a bit surprised if anyone from the "advanced user" crowd would complain. (Though I'm sure someone will for some reason, but not everyone can be made happy so life goes on.) -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 15:49:23 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:49:23 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:42:42AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > FOR: > > > > * People who are somewhat computer savvy, but may be new to Fedora > > ?and/or Linux and FOSS in general > > > > * People who are not sure what they need to do in order to try Fedora > > > > * People who may not understand how to create and use Live media > > > > * People who don't know where to find anything other than the default > > ?offering (i.e., is there something else available?) > > > > NOT FOR: > > > > * People who are currently and comfortably using Fedora > > > > * People who have pre-specified needs for the Fedora they download > > > > * People who know where to find non-default offerings, and want to > > ?pick from an a la carte-style or other expanded sort of list > > > +1 > > I think this is a great proposal/brainstorm/whatever and that it's a > big misconception that there is a need to cater to the more advanced > users as they are going to find their way around even if explanations > of things are more verbose or the site has been simplified, and I'd > honestly be a bit surprised if anyone from the "advanced user" crowd > would complain. (Though I'm sure someone will for some reason, but not > everyone can be made happy so life goes on.) Thanks Adam -- I only covered the get-fedora main page itself, but will want to start developing a similar list for a page that caters to, among others, some of the groups in that "Not For" list. If you have any ideas for that, I encourage you to jump in! -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From maxamillion at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 15:55:25 2009 From: maxamillion at gmail.com (Adam Miller) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:55:25 -0500 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Thanks Adam -- I only covered the get-fedora main page itself, but > will want to start developing a similar list for a page that caters > to, among others, some of the groups in that "Not For" list. ?If you > have any ideas for that, I encourage you to jump in! I'll do some thinking about it, I think it would be a lot of fun to be involved. I noticed that there isn't currently a gobby document on the subject, should there be one created? -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 16:30:42 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:30:42 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090731163042.GO3814@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:55:25AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > Thanks Adam -- I only covered the get-fedora main page itself, but > > will want to start developing a similar list for a page that caters > > to, among others, some of the groups in that "Not For" list. ?If you > > have any ideas for that, I encourage you to jump in! > > > I'll do some thinking about it, I think it would be a lot of fun to be > involved. I noticed that there isn't currently a gobby document on the > subject, should there be one created? I'd rather the discussion happen here where more people are in the audience. We'll capture things in a wiki page so there's transparent documentation. Paul From a.badger at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 17:17:03 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:17:03 -0700 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> On 07/31/2009 08:49 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:42:42AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> >>> FOR: >>> >>> * People who are somewhat computer savvy, but may be new to Fedora >>> and/or Linux and FOSS in general >>> >>> * People who are not sure what they need to do in order to try Fedora >>> >>> * People who may not understand how to create and use Live media >>> >>> * People who don't know where to find anything other than the default >>> offering (i.e., is there something else available?) >>> >>> NOT FOR: >>> >>> * People who are currently and comfortably using Fedora >>> >>> * People who have pre-specified needs for the Fedora they download >>> >>> * People who know where to find non-default offerings, and want to >>> pick from an a la carte-style or other expanded sort of list >> >> >> +1 >> >> I think this is a great proposal/brainstorm/whatever and that it's a >> big misconception that there is a need to cater to the more advanced >> users as they are going to find their way around even if explanations >> of things are more verbose or the site has been simplified, and I'd >> honestly be a bit surprised if anyone from the "advanced user" crowd >> would complain. (Though I'm sure someone will for some reason, but not >> everyone can be made happy so life goes on.) > What is the definition of an advanced user? I see lots of complaints from people who are advanced users and also contributors. If they aren't contributors, I doubt that they'd take the time to complain where we'd see it. One thing that I think the initial portion of the brainstorm touches on but the checklist of intended audience does not is how get-fedora can be a vehicle for moving people up the pyramid. Right now it's static in that it aims to give new users the bits and that's it. One complaint I've heard ("How can we get more people to contribute to the KDE/LXDE spins if they think Fedora treats them as a second class citizen to the Desktop spin?") has a legitimate basis in this concept. We need to strive to make people who come to get-fedora to download a release feel that they are becoming part of the Fedora Community. And by doing so they have the option to participate in the development of the next Fedora -- through code, packaging, art, documentation, marketing, teaching, or any of the other areas that we can receive help. Using this as the foundation of what we're trying to achieve, the idea of a default spin makes a different kind of sense. It isn't the spin for newbies. It's the spin that we think we can entice the most people to contribute to one of the aspects of Fedora where we need help. It needs to solve the needs of contributors to documentation, art, websites, etc as well as solving the needs of the person themselves. Similarly, the other spins aren't for the advanced users, they're the spins optimized to bring people into different parts of our community. Something like http://fedoraproject.org/en/join-fedora but with the focus of getting media first, and contributing to Fedora second. -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 jwboyer at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 18:10:11 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:10:11 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090731181011.GD28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:17:03AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >What is the definition of an advanced user? I see lots of complaints >from people who are advanced users and also contributors. If they >aren't contributors, I doubt that they'd take the time to complain where >we'd see it. > >One thing that I think the initial portion of the brainstorm touches on >but the checklist of intended audience does not is how get-fedora can be >a vehicle for moving people up the pyramid. > >Right now it's static in that it aims to give new users the bits and >that's it. One complaint I've heard ("How can we get more people to >contribute to the KDE/LXDE spins if they think Fedora treats them as a >second class citizen to the Desktop spin?") has a legitimate basis in >this concept. > >We need to strive to make people who come to get-fedora to download a >release feel that they are becoming part of the Fedora Community. And >by doing so they have the option to participate in the development of >the next Fedora -- through code, packaging, art, documentation, >marketing, teaching, or any of the other areas that we can receive help. > >Using this as the foundation of what we're trying to achieve, the idea >of a default spin makes a different kind of sense. It isn't the spin >for newbies. It's the spin that we think we can entice the most people >to contribute to one of the aspects of Fedora where we need help. It >needs to solve the needs of contributors to documentation, art, >websites, etc as well as solving the needs of the person themselves. > >Similarly, the other spins aren't for the advanced users, they're the >spins optimized to bring people into different parts of our community. >Something like http://fedoraproject.org/en/join-fedora but with the >focus of getting media first, and contributing to Fedora second. That is all well and good. I don't see how it conflicts with the current plan or goal though. Do you think the current Desktop spin is not the one that we want to present to entice the most contributors? I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you are trying to propose here. josh From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 18:53:49 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:53:49 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090731185349.GY3814@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:17:03AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On 07/31/2009 08:49 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:42:42AM -0500, Adam Miller wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> > >>> FOR: > >>> > >>> * People who are somewhat computer savvy, but may be new to Fedora > >>> and/or Linux and FOSS in general > >>> > >>> * People who are not sure what they need to do in order to try Fedora > >>> > >>> * People who may not understand how to create and use Live media > >>> > >>> * People who don't know where to find anything other than the default > >>> offering (i.e., is there something else available?) > >>> > >>> NOT FOR: > >>> > >>> * People who are currently and comfortably using Fedora > >>> > >>> * People who have pre-specified needs for the Fedora they download > >>> > >>> * People who know where to find non-default offerings, and want to > >>> pick from an a la carte-style or other expanded sort of list > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> I think this is a great proposal/brainstorm/whatever and that it's a > >> big misconception that there is a need to cater to the more advanced > >> users as they are going to find their way around even if explanations > >> of things are more verbose or the site has been simplified, and I'd > >> honestly be a bit surprised if anyone from the "advanced user" crowd > >> would complain. (Though I'm sure someone will for some reason, but not > >> everyone can be made happy so life goes on.) > > > What is the definition of an advanced user? I see lots of complaints > from people who are advanced users and also contributors. If they > aren't contributors, I doubt that they'd take the time to complain where > we'd see it. > > One thing that I think the initial portion of the brainstorm touches on > but the checklist of intended audience does not is how get-fedora can be > a vehicle for moving people up the pyramid. > > Right now it's static in that it aims to give new users the bits and > that's it. One complaint I've heard ("How can we get more people to > contribute to the KDE/LXDE spins if they think Fedora treats them as a > second class citizen to the Desktop spin?") has a legitimate basis in > this concept. > > We need to strive to make people who come to get-fedora to download a > release feel that they are becoming part of the Fedora Community. And > by doing so they have the option to participate in the development of > the next Fedora -- through code, packaging, art, documentation, > marketing, teaching, or any of the other areas that we can receive help. The simple download page is not the place to accomplish this. Once people download and run, they're in the distribution and are no longer looking at that page. The right place to get users contributing is to lead them once they're running the distro. That might be as simple as a better start.fedoraproject.org, but that's probably a separate discussion from this one, which is about providing a clear download path. The way to achieve more depth of participation from people picking up various spins is to do a great job of explaining to them why that spin matters. That's why part of our overall goal is to have truly meaningful spins pages where the spin communities can provide content they want users to see, such as more details on why their spin is awesome, and how to get involved. > Using this as the foundation of what we're trying to achieve, the idea > of a default spin makes a different kind of sense. It isn't the spin > for newbies. It's the spin that we think we can entice the most people > to contribute to one of the aspects of Fedora where we need help. It > needs to solve the needs of contributors to documentation, art, > websites, etc as well as solving the needs of the person themselves. I'm not sure I understand this. A spin concentrating on Design tools isn't going to look the same as something that effectively introduces people to Fedora and free software. > Similarly, the other spins aren't for the advanced users, they're the > spins optimized to bring people into different parts of our community. > Something like http://fedoraproject.org/en/join-fedora but with the > focus of getting media first, and contributing to Fedora second. Yes, I agree that spins aren't just for advanced users. A Design spin -- I'm just taking this as an example -- could easily appeal to the "Just give me something that works out of the box so I can help with Design tasks" user. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From a.badger at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 19:17:35 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:17:35 -0700 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <20090731181011.GD28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> <20090731181011.GD28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <4A73434F.1090702@gmail.com> On 07/31/2009 11:10 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:17:03AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> What is the definition of an advanced user? I see lots of complaints >>from people who are advanced users and also contributors. If they >> aren't contributors, I doubt that they'd take the time to complain where >> we'd see it. >> >> One thing that I think the initial portion of the brainstorm touches on >> but the checklist of intended audience does not is how get-fedora can be >> a vehicle for moving people up the pyramid. >> >> Right now it's static in that it aims to give new users the bits and >> that's it. One complaint I've heard ("How can we get more people to >> contribute to the KDE/LXDE spins if they think Fedora treats them as a >> second class citizen to the Desktop spin?") has a legitimate basis in >> this concept. >> >> We need to strive to make people who come to get-fedora to download a >> release feel that they are becoming part of the Fedora Community. And >> by doing so they have the option to participate in the development of >> the next Fedora -- through code, packaging, art, documentation, >> marketing, teaching, or any of the other areas that we can receive help. >> >> Using this as the foundation of what we're trying to achieve, the idea >> of a default spin makes a different kind of sense. It isn't the spin >> for newbies. It's the spin that we think we can entice the most people >> to contribute to one of the aspects of Fedora where we need help. It >> needs to solve the needs of contributors to documentation, art, >> websites, etc as well as solving the needs of the person themselves. >> >> Similarly, the other spins aren't for the advanced users, they're the >> spins optimized to bring people into different parts of our community. >> Something like http://fedoraproject.org/en/join-fedora but with the >> focus of getting media first, and contributing to Fedora second. > > That is all well and good. I don't see how it conflicts with the current > plan or goal though. > > Do you think the current Desktop spin is not the one that we want to present > to entice the most contributors? I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you > are trying to propose here. > The current focus is about bits and product, not about people and tasks. This is what the current page looks like: http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora [ Get Fedora 11 Desktop Edition Now [ KDE Fans go here! ] This is the latest version of the [ Have a PowerPC? Go here! ] Fedora Linux operating system [ Show me all download featuring the GNOME desktop. It's options on one page] everything you need to try out Fedora?and if you like it, install it right from the desktop! ] What does Fedora 11 Desktop Edition let me do? I need to run a server, where do I go? I'm a C++ developer, what do I want to use? I'd like to see something more people focused. Why do/should people choose one of the spins over another one? What sets them apart? I think we all agree with the designers that having a mass of links is just spaghetti. But the answer isn't to hide all the options. The answer should be to differentiate the options. Here's an example of what I mean (remember this is a strawman, I'm not involved with all of these teams so I don't know what they see as what their special niche is): With Fedora 11 you can browse the web, talk with friends, write novels, run a business, design websites, or write great software. [ Download the Fedora Desktop Edition for a general purpose desktop. ] [ Want to develop software? [ Want to convert a PowerPC Try out KDE ] Mac into something useful? Run Fedora PPC ] [ Show me all preconfigured download options ] People say over and over that it's impossible to condense all the differences between Gnome and KDE into a single line but that's not really the point. The actual differences in the upstream projects are less important here than the one thing that each of our spin creators wants to advertise as the thing they do well. Our Desktop spin and our KDE spin both want to be general purpose desktops but if they were truly the same thing, we'd only ship one of them. And since ASCii layouts seem to be the order of the day in this email, here's an example of why I think we need to try differentiation is so important. [ Get Linux, Ubuntu Edition Now [ Fedora Fans go here! ] This is the latest version of the [ Have another arch? Linux operating system Get Debian!] featuring the GNOME desktop. It's [ Show me all download everything you need to try out options on one page] Linux?and if you like it, install it right from the desktop! ] Why would you choose to click on the Fedora link in this layout? -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 a.badger at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 19:37:35 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:37:35 -0700 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <20090731185349.GY3814@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> <20090731185349.GY3814@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A7347FF.6020109@gmail.com> On 07/31/2009 11:53 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:17:03AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Right now it's static in that it aims to give new users the bits and >> that's it. One complaint I've heard ("How can we get more people to >> contribute to the KDE/LXDE spins if they think Fedora treats them as a >> second class citizen to the Desktop spin?") has a legitimate basis in >> this concept. >> >> We need to strive to make people who come to get-fedora to download a >> release feel that they are becoming part of the Fedora Community. And >> by doing so they have the option to participate in the development of >> the next Fedora -- through code, packaging, art, documentation, >> marketing, teaching, or any of the other areas that we can receive help. > > The simple download page is not the place to accomplish this. Once > people download and run, they're in the distribution and are no longer > looking at that page. The right place to get users contributing is to > lead them once they're running the distro. That might be as simple as > a better start.fedoraproject.org, but that's probably a separate > discussion from this one, which is about providing a clear download > path. > > The way to achieve more depth of participation from people picking up > various spins is to do a great job of explaining to them why that spin > matters. That's why part of our overall goal is to have truly > meaningful spins pages where the spin communities can provide content > they want users to see, such as more details on why their spin is > awesome, and how to get involved. > I disagree that the simple download page is not the place to start accomplishing a sense of community. I'm not saying that we need to try to push people to be contributors here but we need to push people to feel like they belong within the Fedora Community. I think that the idea of community has to permeate everything that we do. The reason is that I see the idea of community is the core value that can set us apart from other Linux distributions. The simple download page needs to show people that there's a place for everyone in general and them in particular here. >> Using this as the foundation of what we're trying to achieve, the idea >> of a default spin makes a different kind of sense. It isn't the spin >> for newbies. It's the spin that we think we can entice the most people >> to contribute to one of the aspects of Fedora where we need help. It >> needs to solve the needs of contributors to documentation, art, >> websites, etc as well as solving the needs of the person themselves. > > I'm not sure I understand this. A spin concentrating on Design tools > isn't going to look the same as something that effectively introduces > people to Fedora and free software. > I'm saying that no one installs a Linux operating system because they've never used a computer before and want to try installing an OS. The choice to install Fedora is made because they think Fedora will help them achieve something specific. Perhaps they want to see what's coming in a newer RHEL. Perhaps they want a personal desktop that doesn't get infected with viruses. Perhaps they want a platform to do design or programming or documentation. Deciding a target audience shouldn't primarily be about deciding what level of experience they have with Linux but about what the user wants to do with the system. One spin can work for multiple tasks. But when we have people devoting time to making new spins it's because they have experienced a deficiency in the currently available spins that's severe enough for them to not only scratch their itch (by installing the lacking software) but to feel that the severity is a reflection on Fedora itself. People make new spins so that *other people* don't see the problems that they encountered when trying to optimize Fedora for their task. >> Similarly, the other spins aren't for the advanced users, they're the >> spins optimized to bring people into different parts of our community. >> Something like http://fedoraproject.org/en/join-fedora but with the >> focus of getting media first, and contributing to Fedora second. > > Yes, I agree that spins aren't just for advanced users. A Design spin > -- I'm just taking this as an example -- could easily appeal to the > "Just give me something that works out of the box so I can help with > Design tasks" user. > Yep. So I think this part of the equation we agree on :-) -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 jwboyer at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 19:50:34 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:50:34 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <4A73434F.1090702@gmail.com> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> <20090731181011.GD28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4A73434F.1090702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090731195034.GF28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:17:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Do you think the current Desktop spin is not the one that we want to present >> to entice the most contributors? I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you >> are trying to propose here. >> >The current focus is about bits and product, not about people and tasks. > >This is what the current page looks like: > >http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora > >[ Get Fedora 11 Desktop Edition Now [ KDE Fans go here! ] >This is the latest version of the [ Have a PowerPC? Go here! ] >Fedora Linux operating system [ Show me all download >featuring the GNOME desktop. It's options on one page] >everything you need to try out >Fedora?and if you like it, install >it right from the desktop! ] > >What does Fedora 11 Desktop Edition let me do? I need to run a server, >where do I go? I'm a C++ developer, what do I want to use? "What does it let me do?" is sort of a silly question. All the spins allow you to do the exact same stuff, just with a different look to _start_ with. If you know what a server or C++ is, you are probably knowledgeable enough to click the "more info" link (aka spins page). >I'd like to see something more people focused. Why do/should people >choose one of the spins over another one? What sets them apart? I The "what is" and "what sets apart" is one of the explicit goals for the spins page. Not the default download page. >Here's an example of what I mean (remember this is a strawman, I'm not >involved with all of these teams so I don't know what they see as what >their special niche is): > > >With Fedora 11 you can browse the web, talk with friends, write novels, >run a business, design websites, or write great software. > >[ Download the Fedora Desktop Edition for a > general purpose desktop. ] > > [ Want to develop software? [ Want to convert a PowerPC > Try out KDE ] Mac into something useful? > Run Fedora PPC ] > > [ Show me all preconfigured download options ] You're missing the targeting part here. We aren't looking to redesign the default download page and keep the exact same content. We want it simple, targeted at new users, and with a clear an easy link for differentiation present (to the spins page). >People say over and over that it's impossible to condense all the >differences between Gnome and KDE into a single line but that's not >really the point. The actual differences in the upstream projects are >less important here than the one thing that each of our spin creators >wants to advertise as the thing they do well. Our Desktop spin and our >KDE spin both want to be general purpose desktops but if they were truly >the same thing, we'd only ship one of them. And they can differentiate that on the spins page. josh From a.badger at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 20:28:20 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:28:20 -0700 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <20090731195034.GF28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> <20090731181011.GD28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4A73434F.1090702@gmail.com> <20090731195034.GF28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <4A7353E4.6020604@gmail.com> On 07/31/2009 12:50 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:17:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> >> With Fedora 11 you can browse the web, talk with friends, write novels, >> run a business, design websites, or write great software. >> >> [ Download the Fedora Desktop Edition for a >> general purpose desktop. ] Ugh -- I misformatted this. The top paragraph should be part of the download Fedora Desktop Edition. >> >> [ Want to develop software? [ Want to convert a PowerPC >> Try out KDE ] Mac into something useful? >> Run Fedora PPC ] >> >> [ Show me all preconfigured download options ] > > > You're missing the targeting part here. We aren't looking to redesign the > default download page and keep the exact same content. We want it simple, > targeted at new users, and with a clear an easy link for differentiation > present (to the spins page). > And I'm saying that instead of targeting "new users" we should be targeting the tasks that the new users want to do. So if you want the front page to have two links, one to the default spin and a second to the spins page, you need to decide what the most important tasks are that the default spin allows people to perform and make the second link tell people they can get spins optimized for different tasks by clicking to the second page. -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 jwboyer at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 20:38:36 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:38:36 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <4A7353E4.6020604@gmail.com> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> <20090731181011.GD28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4A73434F.1090702@gmail.com> <20090731195034.GF28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4A7353E4.6020604@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090731203836.GH28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:28:20PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> You're missing the targeting part here. We aren't looking to redesign the >> default download page and keep the exact same content. We want it simple, >> targeted at new users, and with a clear an easy link for differentiation >> present (to the spins page). >> >And I'm saying that instead of targeting "new users" we should be >targeting the tasks that the new users want to do. So if you want the >front page to have two links, one to the default spin and a second to >the spins page, you need to decide what the most important tasks are >that the default spin allows people to perform and make the second link >tell people they can get spins optimized for different tasks by clicking >to the second page. Now _that_ is certainly more clear in terms of what you're trying to say. josh From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 21:41:45 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:41:45 -0400 Subject: Redesign of downloads In-Reply-To: <20090731203836.GH28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <20090730175140.GR27458@localhost.localdomain> <20090731152135.GL3814@localhost.localdomain> <20090731154923.GN3814@localhost.localdomain> <4A73270F.1020203@gmail.com> <20090731181011.GD28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4A73434F.1090702@gmail.com> <20090731195034.GF28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4A7353E4.6020604@gmail.com> <20090731203836.GH28607@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20090731214145.GG16883@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 04:38:36PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:28:20PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> You're missing the targeting part here. We aren't looking to redesign the > >> default download page and keep the exact same content. We want it simple, > >> targeted at new users, and with a clear an easy link for differentiation > >> present (to the spins page). > >> > >And I'm saying that instead of targeting "new users" we should be > >targeting the tasks that the new users want to do. So if you want the > >front page to have two links, one to the default spin and a second to > >the spins page, you need to decide what the most important tasks are > >that the default spin allows people to perform and make the second link > >tell people they can get spins optimized for different tasks by clicking > >to the second page. > > Now _that_ is certainly more clear in terms of what you're trying to say. Many people come to the site to download Fedora wanting very general things: * More trouble-free computing * Cost-free software * General desktop computing capabilities I suspect most new users do not come with specific tasks in mind beyond that, so those might make very good additional descriptions of targets for that page. Trying to decide numbers of links on the page is not the thing we should be doing here. That's a bikeshed in the making. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug