From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 13:20:55 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:20:55 -0400 Subject: Why not to create Fedora-us and Fedora-non-us branches? In-Reply-To: <4A2276F5.7040904@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090526170612.GJ9951@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1243358736.3144.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A1C2961.70703@redhat.com> <4A2269C7.1010800@fedoraproject.org> <1243770864.26053.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A227206.9010601@fedoraproject.org> <1243772287.26053.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A2276F5.7040904@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20090601132055.GL9001@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 05:54:21PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 05/31/2009 05:48 PM, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 17:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> On 05/31/2009 05:24 PM, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > >>> On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 16:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Usage of trademark was granted to Russian Fedora by agreement between > >>> Red Hat and other company that represent it here, AFAIK. > >>> Max Spevack was on presentation on Russian Fedora launch. > >> > >> I don't see it recorded in > >> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_licensees > >> > >> It doesn't fit the trademark guidelines either. While Red Hat can > >> legally grant a license to anyone and doesn't have to abide by the > >> guidelines, I would expect it to do so nevertheless. So why a special > >> exception for "Russian Fedora"? > > > > I don't know the details of an agreement, ask legal team for that. > > I don't need to know the details of the agreement. If any such agreement > exists, it should follow the trademark guidelines that Fedora set for > rest of the community and not be given special exceptions. Can the > Fedora Board look into this? I'm already doing so with Max Spevack. -- 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 Mon Jun 1 14:09:23 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:09:23 -0400 Subject: Succession planning change proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20090529204703.GX8435@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090601140923.GO9001@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:36:08PM -0500, inode0 wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Second, I think we also need to fix a couple areas in the text that > > refer to appointed seats as "Red Hat" seats which is a misnomer. > > Appointed seats are filled by the FPL, and appointees need not be Red > > Hat employees. > > Are you speaking here of the APPOINTED SEATS section? I still see > perhaps the old verbiage as it says "The people in these seats are > appointed by Red Hat ..." > > Given the fact that the community freely elects Red Hat employees and > that the FPL freely appoints community members who are not Red Hat > employees I think it is past time to de-emphasize the distinction. You're spot on, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. > In the Composition section it says "All seats are occupied by Fedora > community members." This is correct and this is the language I prefer. > So could we also say that in the blue box at the top of the page > rather than "The Fedora Project Board is made up of a mix of Red Hat > employees and Fedora community contributors?" Actually, I think of Red Hat employees as *part* of the Fedora community, so really it's made up of a mix of Red Hat employees and either a group called "other Fedora community contributors," or called "volunteer contributors." I would lean toward the former, because I would bet there are some people out there who contribute to Fedora in part not as volunteers but paid by some non-Red Hat entity, like a hypothetical employer who pays for someone to spend 15% of his or her time on Fedora. > For the same reasons you give for not liking "Red Hat seats" I object > slightly to the use of "community seats" in the SCHEDULE section. Thanks for catching that -- those instances should read "elected seats." > In the ORDER OF OPERATIONS section it says "We hold back the final > appointment so that we can look ..." which suggests it isn't the FPL > making the decision since that person isn't a "we." Or reword this to > make clear who this "we" refers to exactly. Will do. -- 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 Mon Jun 1 14:14:55 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:14:55 -0400 Subject: Succession planning change proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20090529204703.GX8435@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090601141455.GP9001@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:55:44AM +0200, Max Spevack wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2009, inode0 wrote: > >> In the ORDER OF OPERATIONS section it says "We hold back the final >> appointment so that we can look ..." which suggests it isn't the FPL >> making the decision since that person isn't a "we." Or reword this to >> make clear who this "we" refers to exactly. > > I wrote that text long ago, so I'll take the blame for any ambiguity. > > It's the FPL's call, but I probably wrote "we" to suggest that the FPL > doesn't just sit in a corner staring at a wall until a name pops into > his/her head, but rather thinks about what the Board is trying to and is > meant to achieve, and probably talks to other Board members while trying > to ensure that a good choice is made. I've always thought of selections for appointed seats as "with the advice of the Board," and that's how I've made those appointments in the past turnover periods. I made a few more text changes to make the responsibility for selections clearer. Paul From inode0 at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 15:45:14 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:45:14 -0500 Subject: Succession planning change proposal In-Reply-To: <20090601140923.GO9001@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090529204703.GX8435@localhost.localdomain> <20090601140923.GO9001@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:36:08PM -0500, inode0 wrote: >> In the Composition section it says "All seats are occupied by Fedora >> community members." This is correct and this is the language I prefer. >> So could we also say that in the blue box at the top of the page >> rather than "The Fedora Project Board is made up of a mix of Red Hat >> employees and Fedora community contributors?" > > Actually, I think of Red Hat employees as *part* of the Fedora > community, so really it's made up of a mix of Red Hat employees and > either a group called "other Fedora community contributors," or called > "volunteer contributors." ?I would lean toward the former, because I > would bet there are some people out there who contribute to Fedora in > part not as volunteers but paid by some non-Red Hat entity, like a > hypothetical employer who pays for someone to spend 15% of his or her > time on Fedora. Red Hat employees who serve on the board *are* part of the Fedora community. Singling them out for special mention as Red Hat employees in this context emphasizes the distinction that I would like to see de-emphasized on the board. Red Hat seats and community seats did make a certain sense. There are seats appointed by a Red Hat employee and there are seats elected by the community. However, calling them that in light of who gets appointed and who gets elected highlights the wrong thing. Can we find a way to acknowledge Red Hat's contribution without splitting the description of the board into Red Hat employees and those other contributors? Any construction that begins with "Red Hat employees" and ends with some other generic group of contributors does not sound like a unified community to me. That will be my last two cents on this one. John From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 15:53:02 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:53:02 -0400 Subject: Succession planning change proposal In-Reply-To: References: <20090529204703.GX8435@localhost.localdomain> <20090601140923.GO9001@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090601155302.GU9001@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 10:45:14AM -0500, inode0 wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:36:08PM -0500, inode0 wrote: > >> In the Composition section it says "All seats are occupied by Fedora > >> community members." This is correct and this is the language I prefer. > >> So could we also say that in the blue box at the top of the page > >> rather than "The Fedora Project Board is made up of a mix of Red Hat > >> employees and Fedora community contributors?" > > > > Actually, I think of Red Hat employees as *part* of the Fedora > > community, so really it's made up of a mix of Red Hat employees and > > either a group called "other Fedora community contributors," or called > > "volunteer contributors." ?I would lean toward the former, because I > > would bet there are some people out there who contribute to Fedora in > > part not as volunteers but paid by some non-Red Hat entity, like a > > hypothetical employer who pays for someone to spend 15% of his or her > > time on Fedora. > > Red Hat employees who serve on the board *are* part of the Fedora > community. Singling them out for special mention as Red Hat employees > in this context emphasizes the distinction that I would like to see > de-emphasized on the board. > > Red Hat seats and community seats did make a certain sense. There are > seats appointed by a Red Hat employee and there are seats elected by > the community. However, calling them that in light of who gets > appointed and who gets elected highlights the wrong thing. > > Can we find a way to acknowledge Red Hat's contribution without > splitting the description of the board into Red Hat employees and > those other contributors? Any construction that begins with "Red Hat > employees" and ends with some other generic group of contributors does > not sound like a unified community to me. > > That will be my last two cents on this one. Now I better understand what you were trying to tell me earlier. I've made additional changes to remove these references, which I agree are unnecessary. The changes will be subject to Board approval. Paul From matt at domsch.com Mon Jun 1 18:28:46 2009 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:28:46 -0500 Subject: Fedora Elections: Town Hall scheduling Message-ID: <20090601182837.GA24237@domsch.com> Now that we have our fine slate of candidates for the Board and FESCo, I'd like to schedule two IRC Town Hall meetings for each of these groups, over the next week. Scheduling around 5 people (the Board candidates) is tricky. Scheduling around all 12 FESCo candidates will probably be impossible to get everyone at the same time. Furthermore, I want to schedule them at roughly opposite times of the day, to give an opportunity for as many Fedora members to join us at an hour they might be awake. With that said, here's my proposal. FESCo Candidate forum Wednesday, June 3, 1400 UTC (10am US Eastern Daylight Time, 7am US Pacific Daylight Time) FESCo Candiate forum Thursday, June 4, 0200 UTC (Wed night, 10pm US Eastern Daylight Time, 7pm US Pacific Daylight Time) Board Candidate forum Thursday, June 4, 1400 UTC (10am US Eastern Daylight Time, 7am US Pacific Daylight Time) Board Candidate forum Thursday, June 4, 0200 UTC (Wed night, 10pm US Eastern Daylight Time, 7pm US Pacific Daylight Time) An alternate slot for a FESCo forum, if needed, could be the latter half of the Friday June 5 regular FESCO meeting timeslot, so starting at 17:30UTC. Candidates, please indicate (to me) your (un)availability for these times. Thanks, Matt CalendarMaster From matt at domsch.com Mon Jun 1 18:37:59 2009 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:37:59 -0500 Subject: Fedora Elections: Town Hall scheduling Message-ID: <20090601183758.GB24237@domsch.com> (resend fixing some addresses) Now that we have our fine slate of candidates for the Board and FESCo, I'd like to schedule two IRC Town Hall meetings for each of these groups, over the next week. Scheduling around 5 people (the Board candidates) is tricky. Scheduling around all 12 FESCo candidates will probably be impossible to get everyone at the same time. Furthermore, I want to schedule them at roughly opposite times of the day, to give an opportunity for as many Fedora members to join us at an hour they might be awake. With that said, here's my proposal. FESCo Candidate forum Wednesday, June 3, 1400 UTC (10am US Eastern Daylight Time, 7am US Pacific Daylight Time) FESCo Candiate forum Thursday, June 4, 0200 UTC (Wed night, 10pm US Eastern Daylight Time, 7pm US Pacific Daylight Time) Board Candidate forum Thursday, June 4, 1400 UTC (10am US Eastern Daylight Time, 7am US Pacific Daylight Time) Board Candidate forum Thursday, June 4, 0200 UTC (Wed night, 10pm US Eastern Daylight Time, 7pm US Pacific Daylight Time) An alternate slot for a FESCo forum, if needed, could be the latter half of the Friday June 5 regular FESCO meeting timeslot, so starting at 17:30UTC. Candidates, please indicate (to me) your (un)availability for these times. Thanks, Matt CalendarMaster -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From matt at domsch.com Mon Jun 1 18:47:50 2009 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:47:50 -0500 Subject: Fedora Elections: Town Hall scheduling In-Reply-To: <20090601183758.GB24237@domsch.com> References: <20090601183758.GB24237@domsch.com> Message-ID: <20090601184748.GC24237@domsch.com> On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > (resend fixing some addresses) > > Now that we have our fine slate of candidates for the Board and FESCo, > I'd like to schedule two IRC Town Hall meetings for each of these groups, > over the next week. > > Scheduling around 5 people (the Board candidates) is tricky. Scheduling around > all 12 FESCo candidates will probably be impossible to get everyone at > the same time. Furthermore, I want to schedule them at roughly > opposite times of the day, to give an opportunity for as many Fedora > members to join us at an hour they might be awake. > > With that said, here's my proposal. > > > FESCo Candidate forum > Wednesday, June 3, 1400 UTC > (10am US Eastern Daylight Time, 7am US Pacific Daylight Time) > > FESCo Candiate forum > Thursday, June 4, 0200 UTC > (Wed night, 10pm US Eastern Daylight Time, 7pm US Pacific Daylight Time) > > Board Candidate forum > Thursday, June 4, 1400 UTC > (10am US Eastern Daylight Time, 7am US Pacific Daylight Time) > > the second Board forum should be Friday morning UTC, not Thursday morning, as that would conflict with FESCo. Cut-n-paste error on my part. Thanks to David Nalley for catching this. Board Candidate forum Friday, June 5, 0200 UTC (Thurs night, 10pm US Eastern Daylight Time, 7pm US Pacific Daylight Time) Thanks, Matt CalendarMaster (failing at such) From atorkhov at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 20:30:48 2009 From: atorkhov at gmail.com (Alexey Torkhov) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:30:48 +0400 Subject: Why not to create Fedora-us and Fedora-non-us branches? In-Reply-To: <20090601132055.GL9001@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090526170612.GJ9951@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1243358736.3144.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A1C2961.70703@redhat.com> <4A2269C7.1010800@fedoraproject.org> <1243770864.26053.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A227206.9010601@fedoraproject.org> <1243772287.26053.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A2276F5.7040904@fedoraproject.org> <20090601132055.GL9001@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1243888248.20709.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 09:20 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 05:54:21PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 05/31/2009 05:48 PM, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > > > On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 17:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > >> On 05/31/2009 05:24 PM, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > > >>> On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 16:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Usage of trademark was granted to Russian Fedora by agreement between > > >>> Red Hat and other company that represent it here, AFAIK. > > >>> Max Spevack was on presentation on Russian Fedora launch. > > >> > > >> I don't see it recorded in > > >> > > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_licensees > > >> > > >> It doesn't fit the trademark guidelines either. While Red Hat can > > >> legally grant a license to anyone and doesn't have to abide by the > > >> guidelines, I would expect it to do so nevertheless. So why a special > > >> exception for "Russian Fedora"? > > > > > > I don't know the details of an agreement, ask legal team for that. > > > > I don't need to know the details of the agreement. If any such agreement > > exists, it should follow the trademark guidelines that Fedora set for > > rest of the community and not be given special exceptions. Can the > > Fedora Board look into this? > > I'm already doing so with Max Spevack. There was mentioned in thread in ambassadors list that it should be actually called "Russian Fedora Remix". And it is officially called that. Russian Fedora is just a slang. Sorry for bringing in incorrect information. But they still use slightly modified fedora-logos package. Could you clarify logo guidelines about that package. Is it possible to use it unmodified in remix? Or all fedora logos should be replaced with fedora remix logos? Using generic-logos package would not be solution here, as, I?m sure, they will want to leave as much fedora branding as possible, without striping all logos. Alexey From stickster at gmail.com Mon Jun 1 23:31:33 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 19:31:33 -0400 Subject: Why not to create Fedora-us and Fedora-non-us branches? In-Reply-To: <1243888248.20709.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1243358736.3144.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A1C2961.70703@redhat.com> <4A2269C7.1010800@fedoraproject.org> <1243770864.26053.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A227206.9010601@fedoraproject.org> <1243772287.26053.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A2276F5.7040904@fedoraproject.org> <20090601132055.GL9001@localhost.localdomain> <1243888248.20709.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090601233133.GB3583@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 12:30:48AM +0400, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 09:20 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 05:54:21PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > On 05/31/2009 05:48 PM, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 17:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > >> On 05/31/2009 05:24 PM, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > > > >>> On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 16:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> Usage of trademark was granted to Russian Fedora by agreement between > > > >>> Red Hat and other company that represent it here, AFAIK. > > > >>> Max Spevack was on presentation on Russian Fedora launch. > > > >> > > > >> I don't see it recorded in > > > >> > > > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Trademark_licensees > > > >> > > > >> It doesn't fit the trademark guidelines either. While Red Hat can > > > >> legally grant a license to anyone and doesn't have to abide by the > > > >> guidelines, I would expect it to do so nevertheless. So why a special > > > >> exception for "Russian Fedora"? > > > > > > > > I don't know the details of an agreement, ask legal team for that. > > > > > > I don't need to know the details of the agreement. If any such agreement > > > exists, it should follow the trademark guidelines that Fedora set for > > > rest of the community and not be given special exceptions. Can the > > > Fedora Board look into this? > > > > I'm already doing so with Max Spevack. > > There was mentioned in thread in ambassadors list that it should be > actually called "Russian Fedora Remix". And it is officially called > that. Russian Fedora is just a slang. Sorry for bringing in incorrect > information. OK, understood. As you can see, we need to be careful about referring to the actual name anywhere you talk about the distribution. Otherwise there is a substantial risk to the Fedora brand and the value it holds for the Fedora community, including the trademark owner Red Hat. > But they still use slightly modified fedora-logos package. Could you > clarify logo guidelines about that package. Is it possible to use it > unmodified in remix? Or all fedora logos should be replaced with fedora > remix logos? Modifying the official Fedora logos is not permissible. But, as noted in our trademark guidelines, we provide a special Fedora Remix logo that can be used in any Fedora Remix: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines It is up to the vendor of the remix to provide an appropriate RPM that 'Provides: system-logos'. > Using generic-logos package would not be solution here, as, I?m sure, > they will want to leave as much fedora branding as possible, without > striping all logos. It is not permissible to use official Fedora branding on a Remix that has not been approved by the Fedora Board, or is otherwise not eligible for that branding. But the Fedora Remix mark can serve the purpose you need. The generic-logos package may not be satisfactory for you, but you can use it as a guide for applying the Fedora Remix mark and your own artwork as a "russian-fedora-remix-logos" RPM package which you can use to build the distro. -- 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 atorkhov at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 12:23:33 2009 From: atorkhov at gmail.com (Alexey Torkhov) Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:23:33 +0400 Subject: Why not to create Fedora-us and Fedora-non-us branches? In-Reply-To: <20090601233133.GB3583@localhost.localdomain> References: <1243358736.3144.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A1C2961.70703@redhat.com> <4A2269C7.1010800@fedoraproject.org> <1243770864.26053.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A227206.9010601@fedoraproject.org> <1243772287.26053.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A2276F5.7040904@fedoraproject.org> <20090601132055.GL9001@localhost.localdomain> <1243888248.20709.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090601233133.GB3583@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1243945413.20709.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:31 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 12:30:48AM +0400, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > > There was mentioned in thread in ambassadors list that it should be > > actually called "Russian Fedora Remix". And it is officially called > > that. Russian Fedora is just a slang. Sorry for bringing in incorrect > > information. > > OK, understood. As you can see, we need to be careful about referring > to the actual name anywhere you talk about the distribution. > Otherwise there is a substantial risk to the Fedora brand and the > value it holds for the Fedora community, including the trademark owner > Red Hat. > > > But they still use slightly modified fedora-logos package. Could you > > clarify logo guidelines about that package. Is it possible to use it > > unmodified in remix? Or all fedora logos should be replaced with fedora > > remix logos? > > Modifying the official Fedora logos is not permissible. But, as noted > in our trademark guidelines, we provide a special Fedora Remix logo > that can be used in any Fedora Remix: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines > > It is up to the vendor of the remix to provide an appropriate RPM that > 'Provides: system-logos'. > > > Using generic-logos package would not be solution here, as, I?m sure, > > they will want to leave as much fedora branding as possible, without > > striping all logos. > > It is not permissible to use official Fedora branding on a Remix that > has not been approved by the Fedora Board, or is otherwise not > eligible for that branding. But the Fedora Remix mark can serve the > purpose you need. The generic-logos package may not be satisfactory > for you, but you can use it as a guide for applying the Fedora Remix > mark and your own artwork as a "russian-fedora-remix-logos" RPM > package which you can use to build the distro. Thanks for answer. I've contacted Russian Fedora Remix team, they are starting process of bringing it in agreement to trademark and logo guidelines. Alexey From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 13:30:18 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:30:18 -0400 Subject: Why not to create Fedora-us and Fedora-non-us branches? In-Reply-To: <1243945413.20709.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A2269C7.1010800@fedoraproject.org> <1243770864.26053.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A227206.9010601@fedoraproject.org> <1243772287.26053.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A2276F5.7040904@fedoraproject.org> <20090601132055.GL9001@localhost.localdomain> <1243888248.20709.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090601233133.GB3583@localhost.localdomain> <1243945413.20709.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090602133018.GH21580@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 04:23:33PM +0400, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 19:31 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 12:30:48AM +0400, Alexey Torkhov wrote: > > > There was mentioned in thread in ambassadors list that it should be > > > actually called "Russian Fedora Remix". And it is officially called > > > that. Russian Fedora is just a slang. Sorry for bringing in incorrect > > > information. > > > > OK, understood. As you can see, we need to be careful about referring > > to the actual name anywhere you talk about the distribution. > > Otherwise there is a substantial risk to the Fedora brand and the > > value it holds for the Fedora community, including the trademark owner > > Red Hat. > > > > > But they still use slightly modified fedora-logos package. Could you > > > clarify logo guidelines about that package. Is it possible to use it > > > unmodified in remix? Or all fedora logos should be replaced with fedora > > > remix logos? > > > > Modifying the official Fedora logos is not permissible. But, as noted > > in our trademark guidelines, we provide a special Fedora Remix logo > > that can be used in any Fedora Remix: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines > > > > It is up to the vendor of the remix to provide an appropriate RPM that > > 'Provides: system-logos'. > > > > > Using generic-logos package would not be solution here, as, I?m sure, > > > they will want to leave as much fedora branding as possible, without > > > striping all logos. > > > > It is not permissible to use official Fedora branding on a Remix that > > has not been approved by the Fedora Board, or is otherwise not > > eligible for that branding. But the Fedora Remix mark can serve the > > purpose you need. The generic-logos package may not be satisfactory > > for you, but you can use it as a guide for applying the Fedora Remix > > mark and your own artwork as a "russian-fedora-remix-logos" RPM > > package which you can use to build the distro. > > Thanks for answer. > > I've contacted Russian Fedora Remix team, they are starting process of > bringing it in agreement to trademark and logo guidelines. Thank you Alexey, and if you or the team has any questions, please feel free to get in touch. -- 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 mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 2 13:39:16 2009 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:39:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Why not to create Fedora-us and Fedora-non-us branches? In-Reply-To: <20090602133018.GH21580@localhost.localdomain> References: <4A2269C7.1010800@fedoraproject.org> <1243770864.26053.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A227206.9010601@fedoraproject.org> <1243772287.26053.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A2276F5.7040904@fedoraproject.org> <20090601132055.GL9001@localhost.localdomain> <1243888248.20709.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090601233133.GB3583@localhost.localdomain> <1243945413.20709.78.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090602133018.GH21580@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> I've contacted Russian Fedora Remix team, they are starting process >> of bringing it in agreement to trademark and logo guidelines. > > Thank you Alexey, and if you or the team has any questions, please > feel free to get in touch. My thanks to Alexey for being so diligent, and to Paul for being so helpful with the answers. --Max From matt at domsch.com Tue Jun 2 16:11:24 2009 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:11:24 -0500 Subject: Planning for Fedora Elections In-Reply-To: <20090514183504.GB7721@domsch.com> References: <20090507162000.GA10044@domsch.com> <20090514183504.GB7721@domsch.com> Message-ID: <20090602161124.GC15644@domsch.com> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 01:35:06PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > The Board has 3 elected seats open. > FESCo has 5 elected seats open. > > These are the only two elections I am aware we will run. > > In addition, with no objections raised so far, the Board discussed on > today's call adjusting the schedule, such that it completes within 30 > days of the release of Fedora 11. The 4 weeks I had allowed for > nominations was also considered excessive. As such, the new schedule > will be: > > * Nominations are open from 15 May through 29 May. Individuals > may provide questions they would like candidates to answer. > * IRC Town Hall-style discussions with candidates for the various > positions will be arranged for 31 May through 6 June. Candidates > will be given a set of written questions suggested above, to > answer by public email if they wish. > * The elections will take place 7 June through 22 June. > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections Due to a late nomination, after the 29 May deadline noted above (even accounting for time zones), Robert Scheck has been removed from consideration for FESCo. Robert is a valued member of the Fedora community. I have no doubt he would serve well on FESCo, and hope he will consider running again in the next election cycle. Thanks, Matt From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jun 2 16:27:37 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:27:37 -0400 Subject: Planning for Fedora Elections In-Reply-To: <20090602161124.GC15644@domsch.com> References: <20090507162000.GA10044@domsch.com> <20090514183504.GB7721@domsch.com> <20090602161124.GC15644@domsch.com> Message-ID: <20090602162737.GK21580@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 11:11:24AM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > Due to a late nomination, after the 29 May deadline noted above (even > accounting for time zones), Robert Scheck has been removed from > consideration for FESCo. Robert is a valued member of the Fedora > community. I have no doubt he would serve well on FESCo, and hope he > will consider running again in the next election cycle. Although this is unfortunate, there's a fairly reasonable expectation around elections that they be equitable to all nominees. Adhering to the deadline, which was published here, on the wiki, and on the Planet several times, helps us avoid any appearance of bias. With a process that happens twice a year, at least there's not long to wait for the next iteration. -- 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 matt at domsch.com Wed Jun 3 02:01:38 2009 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:01:38 -0500 Subject: Fedora Elections: Town Hall schedule set, beginning in 12 hours In-Reply-To: <20090601183758.GB24237@domsch.com> References: <20090601183758.GB24237@domsch.com> Message-ID: <20090603020135.GA18656@domsch.com> With each of the candidates noting they can attend at least one of the IRC Town Halls for their respective offices, the schedule I proposed is now set. Town Halls begin in about 12 hours. Each group participating in the election will host two Town Hall sessions on IRC. Each will last one hour, or less if there are no further questions. How to Join * Everyone should join #fedora-townhall on FreeNode (irc.freenode.net). Only candidates and a moderator may speak in this channel. * Non-candidates should also join #fedora-townhall-public on FreeNode (irc.freenode.net). Direct your questions for the candidates to the moderator. FESCo Candidate forum Wednesday, June 3, 1400 UTC (10am US Eastern Daylight Time, 7am US Pacific Daylight Time) Moderated by Max Spevack FESCo Candiate forum Thursday, June 4, 0200 UTC (Wed night, 10pm US Eastern Daylight Time, 7pm US Pacific Daylight Time) Moderated by Chris Tyler Board Candidate forum Thursday, June 4, 1400 UTC (10am US Eastern Daylight Time, 7am US Pacific Daylight Time) Moderated by Paul Frields Board Candidate forum Friday, June 5 0200 UTC (Thurs night, 10pm US Eastern Daylight Time, 7pm US Pacific Daylight Time) Moderated by John Rose (aka inode0) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections lists these now. I look forward to your participation, and hope these forums will more fully inform our electorate about the candidates. Thanks, Matt From fedora at leemhuis.info Wed Jun 3 19:28:36 2009 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:28:36 +0200 Subject: (Most) Results from the Candidate Questionnaire are available now Message-ID: <4A26CEE4.7050300@leemhuis.info> Hi! As you might remember, we collected a list of questions that a few days ago were sent to the Candidates of the next Fedora Board/FESCo Elections(?). I got most answers back in between (dgilmore should follow soon; no response from ianweller yet, who seems to be traveling or something according to his IRC away message) and published them in two ways: * as Plain Text: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/answers.txt * as an OpenOffice table, which IMHO allows easier comparison of the different answers: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/answers-table.ods I had planed to put them in the wiki as a table was well, but ran out of time, sorry (?). The answers are quite interesting and as far as I can see can be quite helpful to decide whom to (not) vote for. So if you plan to vote in the elections I'd suggest you go and read the answers! CU knurd (?) For details see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg01507.html (?) Actually the whole "Candidate Questionnaire" process was a bit bumpy, but I think we learned a lot and I guess it will be a lot smoother next time if we want to do it again during the next elections From notting at redhat.com Wed Jun 3 20:24:16 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:24:16 -0400 Subject: (Most) Results from the Candidate Questionnaire are available now In-Reply-To: <4A26CEE4.7050300@leemhuis.info> References: <4A26CEE4.7050300@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <20090603202416.GC30596@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said: > The answers are quite interesting and as far as I can see can be quite > helpful to decide whom to (not) vote for. So if you plan to vote in the > elections I'd suggest you go and read the answers! Thanks for doing this! Bill From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 20:55:18 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:55:18 -0400 Subject: (Most) Results from the Candidate Questionnaire are available now In-Reply-To: <20090603202416.GC30596@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4A26CEE4.7050300@leemhuis.info> <20090603202416.GC30596@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090603205518.GX3095@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 04:24:16PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said: >> The answers are quite interesting and as far as I can see can be quite >> helpful to decide whom to (not) vote for. So if you plan to vote in the >> elections I'd suggest you go and read the answers! > >Thanks for doing this! Agreed, thanks. I'd like to add that if anyone want's follow ups to answers, feel free to email the candidates too! josh From stickster at gmail.com Wed Jun 3 21:03:31 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 17:03:31 -0400 Subject: (Most) Results from the Candidate Questionnaire are available now In-Reply-To: <4A26CEE4.7050300@leemhuis.info> References: <4A26CEE4.7050300@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <20090603210331.GU3551@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 09:28:36PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > As you might remember, we collected a list of questions that a few days > ago were sent to the Candidates of the next Fedora Board/FESCo > Elections(?). I got most answers back in between (dgilmore should follow > soon; no response from ianweller yet, who seems to be traveling or > something according to his IRC away message) and published them in two ways: > > * as Plain Text: > http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/answers.txt > > * as an OpenOffice table, which IMHO allows easier comparison of the > different answers: > http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/answers-table.ods > > I had planed to put them in the wiki as a table was well, but ran out of > time, sorry (?). > > The answers are quite interesting and as far as I can see can be quite > helpful to decide whom to (not) vote for. So if you plan to vote in the > elections I'd suggest you go and read the answers! Thorsten, thanks not only to you for doing this, but also to all the nominees who sent in thoughtful answers. I've been enjoying reading them (off and on between other tasks) today, and I certainly think this enhances the election process. I'm disappointed this ended up being a more difficult process than you intended, but I have no doubt we can improve it for the next cycle. Again, my heartfelt thanks. -- 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 tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jun 3 21:02:07 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:02:07 -0400 Subject: (Most) Results from the Candidate Questionnaire are available now In-Reply-To: <20090603205518.GX3095@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4A26CEE4.7050300@leemhuis.info> <20090603202416.GC30596@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20090603205518.GX3095@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <4A26E4CF.2070407@redhat.com> On 06/03/2009 04:55 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 04:24:16PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said: >>> The answers are quite interesting and as far as I can see can be quite >>> helpful to decide whom to (not) vote for. So if you plan to vote in the >>> elections I'd suggest you go and read the answers! >> Thanks for doing this! > > Agreed, thanks. > > I'd like to add that if anyone want's follow ups to answers, feel free to > email the candidates too! A great big me too here. Also, if anyone isn't able to attend the townhall meetings, I'd be happy to answer any questions sent to me via email. Thanks, ~spot From fedora at leemhuis.info Thu Jun 4 06:44:51 2009 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:44:51 +0200 Subject: (Most) Results from the Candidate Questionnaire are available now In-Reply-To: <4A26CEE4.7050300@leemhuis.info> References: <4A26CEE4.7050300@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <4A276D63.5060302@leemhuis.info> On 03.06.2009 21:28, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > As you might remember, we collected a list of questions that a few days > ago were sent to the Candidates of the next Fedora Board/FESCo > Elections(?). I got most answers back in between (dgilmore should follow > soon; no response from ianweller yet, who seems to be traveling or > something according to his IRC away message) and published them in two ways: > > * as Plain Text: > http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/answers.txt > > * as an OpenOffice table, which IMHO allows easier comparison of the > different answers: > http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedora/answers-table.ods Both updated with the answers from Dglimore. CU knurd From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jun 5 01:29:56 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 21:29:56 -0400 Subject: Board appointment Message-ID: <20090605012956.GA5624@localhost.localdomain> I am pleased to announce that John Poelstra is our first appointment to the Fedora Project Board for this cycle. His term will last until the selection process following the release of Fedora 13, in accordance with the Board's established succession planning. Many of our contributors know John from his work in many capacities around the Project, from work with the Fedora Bug Zappers, maintaining our release schedule, and facilitating meetings for many of our community teams. He will bring a unique perspective and experience to our team. Please join me in welcoming John to the Board! -- 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 gdk at redhat.com Fri Jun 5 02:23:28 2009 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg Dekoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 22:23:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Board appointment In-Reply-To: <20090605012956.GA5624@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090605012956.GA5624@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: /me claps. A fine choice. --g -- Computer Science professors should be teaching open source. Help make it happen. Visit http://teachingopensource.org. On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > I am pleased to announce that John Poelstra is our first appointment > to the Fedora Project Board for this cycle. His term will last until > the selection process following the release of Fedora 13, in > accordance with the Board's established succession planning. > > Many of our contributors know John from his work in many capacities > around the Project, from work with the Fedora Bug Zappers, maintaining > our release schedule, and facilitating meetings for many of our > community teams. He will bring a unique perspective and experience to > our team. Please join me in welcoming John to the Board! > > -- > 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 > > -- > fedora-announce-list mailing list > fedora-announce-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-announce-list > From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Jun 5 22:10:44 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 18:10:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 11 Retrospective :: Tuesday 2009-06-16 @ 14:00 UTC (10 AM EDT) In-Reply-To: <684119784.2911781244239667143.JavaMail.root@zmail01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <771077574.2911901244239844107.JavaMail.root@zmail01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> With the Release of Fedora 11 on Tuesday we are very close to the end of another release! I am organizing a project wide retrospective for Fedora 11. At this meeting we will talk about the things that went well that we may want to repeat in subsequent releases as well as things that didn't go so well that we'd like to fix. The meeting will be conducted over the telephone (global toll free access provided to the participants) and notes taken using Fedora's public Gobby instance. As much as I think it would interesting to involve everyone in Fedora I'm not sure how to feasibly accomplish that so I am inviting the people that represented each of the teams at the release readiness meetings during Fedora 11. To expand the participants a little more I'd like each team lead to invite one other person from their team who would be willing to attend the meeting and offer their feedback--preferably someone that has been been involved in the release that hasn't had an opportunity to participate in a forum like this before. And, to expand the scope of feedback we collect, there is also a lottery where five other randomly chosen Fedora community members can also participate. The lottery starts today and closes one week from now on June 13, 2009 at 7:00 UTC. Please enter only if you are able to attend. While not perfect, hopefully the combination of multiple people from each team as well as five extra guests will give us a representative sample of the fine group of folks that help make our releases happen. Team leaders please coordinate among your teams (particularly if you cannot attend). Interested lottery participants please add your information here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Retrospective Once the lottery closes on June 13, 2009, I will email all participants with the call-in information. Thanks, John From nigjones at redhat.com Sat Jun 6 14:27:51 2009 From: nigjones at redhat.com (Nigel Jones) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora Elections and Release Name Selection - Voting Information In-Reply-To: <605663737.3066781244298118026.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1329089297.3066841244298471897.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Hi Everyone, The elections for the Fedora Board, Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) and the Fedora 12 Release Name choice have been created and are due to start at 0000 UTC on 7th June 2009 and are scheduled to run until 2359 UTC on 22nd June 2009. All groups have chosen to use the Range Voting method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting). Ballots may be cast on the Fedora Elections System at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting. If this is the first time you've used the voting system, please refer to the Fedora Elections Guide, currently located at http://nigelj.fedorapeople.org/feg/. Fedora Board Election: ---------------------- This election, the Fedora Board is electing three candidates and will appoint another two members. Vacating the seats on the board this election are Jesse Keating, Seth Vidal, Tom Callaway, Chris Tyler and Harald Hoyer. John Poelstra was announced as the board's first appointee with the second to be decided after the election. The candidates for this election, in alphabetical order are: David Nalley (ke4qqq) Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore) Josh Boyer (jwb) Mike McGrath (mmcgrath) Tom Callaway (spot) To vote, you must have a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA). Vote Here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/boardf12 Town Hall Logs: * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meetings:Town_Hall_Board_2009-06-04_1400UTC * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meetings:Town_Hall_Board_2009-06-05_0200UTC Fedora Engineering Steering Committee Election: ----------------------------------------------- For this election, FESCo will be electing five candidates to sit on the committee. Vacating the seats on FESCo this election are Bill Nottingham, Kevin Fenzi, Dennis Gilmore, Brian Pebble and David Woodhouse. The candidates for this election, in alphabetical order are: Adam Miller (maxamillion) Andreas Thienemann (ixs) Bill Nottingham (notting) Christoph Wickert (cwickert) David Woodhouse (dwmw2) Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore) Ian Weller (ianweller) Jens Petersen (juhp) Kevin Fenzi (nirik) Kevin Kofler (Kevin_Kofler) Seth Vidal (skvidal) To vote, you must have a signed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) and be a member of any other group. Vote Here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/fescof12 Town Hall Logs: * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meetings:Town_Hall_FESCo_2009-06-03_1400 * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meetings:Town_Hall_FESCo_2009-06-04_0200 Fedora 12 Release Name Community Vote: ----------------------------------------------- This community vote has been setup to choose the release name for Fedora 12. The choices for this vote were selected using community suggestions from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Name_suggestions_for_Fedora_12. The options for this vote are in alphabetical order: Chilon Constantine Orville Rugosa Umbria To vote, you must be a member of the ambassadors group in the Fedora Account System. Vote Here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/relnamef12 *** I'd also like to point out the following from Paul Frields' announcement for the June 2008 Board Election: "I'd like everyone voting to remember that this isn't a popularity contest, or a reward system. Think about how you'd like to Board to look when you vote, the same way you think about how you'd like any government body to look when you cast votes for their elections. We have a lot of worthy candidates on this list, and you should pick the ones that you feel will best represent you in advancing the Fedora Project. This is one of numerous ways in which our community makes decisions about the leadership of Fedora. Your vote counts, and I hope you take advantage of it." *** This advice is still valid, not just for the Fedora Board election but for all three elections. Thanks also go to Matt Domsch and other volunteers who have helped with organising and running Town Hall meetings for these elections. Regards, Nigel Jones Fedora Election Admin From stickster at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 20:58:23 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:58:23 -0400 Subject: Fedora Elections and Release Name Selection - Voting Information In-Reply-To: <1329089297.3066841244298471897.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <605663737.3066781244298118026.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1329089297.3066841244298471897.JavaMail.root@zmail07.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090606205823.GA3381@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 10:27:51AM -0400, Nigel Jones wrote: > Fedora 12 Release Name Community Vote: > ----------------------------------------------- > This community vote has been setup to choose the release name for > Fedora 12. > > The choices for this vote were selected using community suggestions > from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Name_suggestions_for_Fedora_12. > > The options for this vote are in alphabetical order: > > Chilon > Constantine > Orville > Rugosa > Umbria > > To vote, you must be a member of the ambassadors group in the Fedora > Account System. > > Vote Here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/relnamef12 One small correction to the above: You must be a member of at least one non-CLA group to vote for the release name. This information is confirmed in the voting system itself: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/relnamef12 Refer to the previous email for information about all the elections, or visit the voting application at: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/ Voting opens on June 7 and will end on June 22, as noted on the wiki [[Elections]] page. Please take advantage of this opportunity, and vote wisely. Most importantly, thank you for participating in Fedora! -- 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 a.mani.cms at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 15:10:05 2009 From: a.mani.cms at gmail.com (Mani A) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 20:40:05 +0530 Subject: Fedora Elections and Release Name Selection - Voting Information Message-ID: <78323d480906070810k2ea10240nc928ca9ab2ab8855@mail.gmail.com> Nigel Jones wrote: > Fedora 12 Release Name Community Vote: > ----------------------------------------------- > To vote, you must be a member of the ambassadors group in the Fedora > Account System. > > Vote Here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/about/relnamef12 > There is a problem with the page. It did not permit me to login. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1444#preview Best A. Mani -- A. Mani ASL, CLC, AMS, CMS http://amani.topcities.com http://www.logicamani.co.cc From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 15:49:46 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:49:46 -0400 Subject: Seating of new Board Message-ID: <20090611154946.GX3389@localhost.localdomain> This item is a followup from our previous IRC meeting: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-06-04 I'm proposing that the reconstituted Board -- with its newly elected and appointed members -- have its first meeting the week of July 6. We'll have to figure out in advance the appropriate date and time to meet everyone's schedule, which we do not need to handle on this list. Yay / nay? -- 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 matt at domsch.com Thu Jun 11 15:59:52 2009 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:59:52 +0000 Subject: Seating of new Board Message-ID: <1863217720-1244735972-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1982346289-@bxe1282.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Worksforme. ------Original Message------ From: Paul W. Frields Sender: fedora-advisory-board-bounces at redhat.com To: fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com ReplyTo: fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com Subject: Seating of new Board Sent: Jun 11, 2009 10:49 AM This item is a followup from our previous IRC meeting: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-06-04 I'm proposing that the reconstituted Board -- with its newly elected and appointed members -- have its first meeting the week of July 6. We'll have to figure out in advance the appropriate date and time to meet everyone's schedule, which we do not need to handle on this list. Yay / nay? -- 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 _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jun 11 16:03:49 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:03:49 -0400 Subject: Seating of new Board In-Reply-To: <20090611154946.GX3389@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090611154946.GX3389@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1244736229.3206.158.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 11:49 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Yay -- 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 skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Jun 11 16:04:58 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:04:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Seating of new Board In-Reply-To: <20090611154946.GX3389@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090611154946.GX3389@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > This item is a followup from our previous IRC meeting: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-06-04 > > I'm proposing that the reconstituted Board -- with its newly elected > and appointed members -- have its first meeting the week of July 6. > We'll have to figure out in advance the appropriate date and time to > meet everyone's schedule, which we do not need to handle on this list. > > Yay / nay? > why not. -sv From dimitris at glezos.com Thu Jun 11 16:14:08 2009 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:14:08 +0300 Subject: Seating of new Board In-Reply-To: <20090611154946.GX3389@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090611154946.GX3389@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <6d4237680906110914r1058762bgf038d4528bf7554@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > This item is a followup from our previous IRC meeting: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-06-04 > > I'm proposing that the reconstituted Board -- with its newly elected > and appointed members -- have its first meeting the week of July 6. > We'll have to figure out in advance the appropriate date and time to > meet everyone's schedule, which we do not need to handle on this list. > > Yay / nay? works for me . -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From notting at redhat.com Thu Jun 11 17:41:27 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:41:27 -0400 Subject: Seating of new Board In-Reply-To: <20090611154946.GX3389@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090611154946.GX3389@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090611174127.GA16628@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > This item is a followup from our previous IRC meeting: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-06-04 > > I'm proposing that the reconstituted Board -- with its newly elected > and appointed members -- have its first meeting the week of July 6. > We'll have to figure out in advance the appropriate date and time to > meet everyone's schedule, which we do not need to handle on this list. > > Yay / nay? Sounds good. Bill From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 19:34:46 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:34:46 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-06-11 Message-ID: <20090611193446.GA25419@localhost.localdomain> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-06-11 == Roll Call == * Board Members: Harald Hoyer, Dimitris Glezos, Chris Tyler, Chris Aillon, Paul W. Frields * Regrets: Tom 'spot' Callaway, Matt Domsch, Bill Nottingham, Jesse Keating, Seth Vidal * Secretary: N/A Spent a couple minutes at the top of the meeting on Fedora 11 release 'Yeehaa!!'s. == What is Fedora == * last discussion: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-05-21 * Chris is still chasing it down * Desktop team meeting today covered this in part * Nothing in writing yet ** ACTION: Chris Aillon to have something ready June 25 == Status of sponsorship work == * last discussion: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-05-21 * Spot has design proposals from Mo Duffy & Ricky Zhou * Paul to kick the general proposal part in the posterior * Proposal on wiki, run by Infrastructure, then FAB == Fedora 11 Release Follow-up == * Anything emergent that we need to address right away? ** Looks solid from a board pov ** Awesome job by infra team ** record breaking release ** Fedora moves about **24 Petabytes** every release via all channels * ACTION: Dimitris -- ticket to website to add very brief summary of current BT stats to the download page ** Ticket created: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1456 * release wide retrospective on Tuesday: ** Paul described the logistics for the meeting (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-June/msg00024.html) ** Paul will get one extra Board member to attend, email Paul or John Poelstra to be included == Security notification plan == * Status of security proposal from Mike McGrath to be ready after the release of Fedora 11 ** CSI pages describe best practices for an open source project based on our experiences ** Draft posted -- http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/documents/csi-securitypolicy/ * ACTION: Board to review and discuss next week in full == PPC as a secondary arch == * Use of the existing ppc builders for a secondary arch effort * last discussion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-06-04#t04_Jun_13:39 ** Does this create a chicken/egg problem? How does PPC proceed if we *don't* use these hardware pieces? ** It doesn't seem like there's any point in *not* providing them ** Need more information from Board members who have intimate knowledge of the hardware and/or other priorities the current call-in group doesn't know about * ACTION: Paul to ask on list for input from missing Board members == Postponed / Future Business == === Toxicity--follow-ups === * establishing a list for moderators to record what they're doing * assignment of actual moderators * announcement on FAB about those names === Security notification plan === * Review and discuss plan as it exists now in CSI docs === Seating of next Board === * Establish first meeting date, and set meeting day/time with new members. == Next Meeting == * Date: 2009-06-18 * Time: 1700 UTC -- 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 a.badger at gmail.com Fri Jun 12 01:54:51 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:54:51 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-06-11 In-Reply-To: <20090611193446.GA25419@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090611193446.GA25419@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A31B56B.40200@gmail.com> On 06/11/2009 12:34 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > == What is Fedora == > * last discussion: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-05-21 Is this the proposal being pursued from that discussion? """ spot: Suggest that GNOME Desktop spin be explicitly acknowledged as default ("first among equals") -- Changes to benefit other Spins that create a conflict should be arbitrated by FESCo, with guidance that the GNOME Desktop spin wins if all else is equal. If those changes are not amenable to the GNOME desktop SIG, then they go to FESCo for arbitration. If FESCo feels that the change is worthwhile, they should escalate to the Board for final decision. """ > * Chris is still chasing it down > * Desktop team meeting today covered this in part > * Nothing in writing yet > ** ACTION: Chris Aillon to have something ready June 25 If so, is this really within the Board's jurisdiction or is it stepping into an area that they've handed over to FESCo? Defining a target audience is definitely Board material. But defining how to address that audience (The GNOME Spin is the default spin, technical changes that create conflict are arbitrated by FESCo... but that arbitration is only binding on the non-GNOME party. If the GNOME Desktop spin disagrees with FESCo's ruling, it then goes to the Board) seems to be reaching into implementation and the technical realm. If, for instance, the Board decided that our goal is wooing more developers to use Fedora and our default audience is Windows programmers; perhaps an Eclipse based spin is a better implementation of that policy or KDE since its C++ and distributed on Windows or WXGTK or.... To me, the overarching goals and ideas of what Fedora is is at a higher level than a particular spin. It should be something that we can use for many, many years as it's an enunciation of the ideals that Fedora is building on no matter how the technical landscape changes because the ideas are about our relation to society, our users, and ourselves. This vision of what Fedora is seems like just the thing that the Board should be working on. Implementing these goals as a specific default spin; a method of arbitrating disputes; whether to install codeina or not -- are more changable. They are based on the technical realities of the present. But as technologies change, upstream projects evolve, and our developers decide which technical things to devote their time to work on the implementations need to change with them. And they need to be changed by people who are charged with dealing with the technical aspects of the distribution and can make decisions based on how it will affect the programs, user experience, and developers of the distribution in support of the overarching goals. -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 poelstra at redhat.com Fri Jun 12 02:24:05 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:24:05 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-06-11 In-Reply-To: <20090611193446.GA25419@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090611193446.GA25419@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4A31BC45.9060601@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields said the following on 06/11/2009 12:34 PM Pacific Time: > == Fedora 11 Release Follow-up == > > * Anything emergent that we need to address right away? > ** Looks solid from a board pov > ** Awesome job by infra team > ** record breaking release > ** Fedora moves about **24 Petabytes** every release via all channels > * ACTION: Dimitris -- ticket to website to add very brief summary of > current BT stats to the download page > ** Ticket created: > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1456 > * release wide retrospective on Tuesday: > ** Paul described the logistics for the meeting > (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-June/msg00024.html) > ** Paul will get one extra Board member to attend, email Paul or John > Poelstra to be included > Better yet, add your name to the appropriate section on this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Retrospective John From stickster at gmail.com Sun Jun 14 20:32:59 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:32:59 -0400 Subject: One week left for voting Message-ID: <20090614203259.GA18781@localhost.localdomain> There's approximately one week left to vote in the combined Fedora elections. To cast your vote, visit: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting For more information on the specific elections, visit this thread in the archives for the fedora-advisory-board list: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-June/msg00025.html Thanks for participating! -- 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 poelstra at redhat.com Mon Jun 15 18:08:54 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:08:54 -0700 Subject: Fedora 11 Retrospective :: Tuesday 2009-06-16 @ 14:00 UTC (10 AM EDT) In-Reply-To: <4A36877D.1050507@redhat.com> References: <771077574.2911901244239844107.JavaMail.root@zmail01.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <4A36877D.1050507@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A368E36.3010709@redhat.com> Jack Aboutboul said the following on 06/15/2009 10:40 AM Pacific Time: > Hey John, > > I never got the dial in info. Can you please resend it, I want to put it > into my zimbra. > > Thanks, > Jack I'm sending it out in a little bit. John From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Jun 16 16:55:32 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:55:32 -0700 Subject: Fedora 11 Retrospective Recap Message-ID: <4A37CE84.3030808@redhat.com> Fedora 11 Retrospective Recap 2009-06-16 Wiki version: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Retrospective_Notes Invitees: Cross section of people and leads from each group: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Retrospective_Invitees Attendees: James Laska, Bruno Wolff, J?hann B. Gu?mundsson, John McDonough, Jon Stanley, Jarod Wilson, Todd Zullinger, Ricky Zhou, Steven Moix, Mike McGrath,Jack Aboutboul, Paul Frields, Eric Christensen, John Poelstra, Edward Kirk, Adam Williamson, M?ir?n Duffy, and Jesse Keating Unrepresented Teams: Ambassadors, Translation Location: Global teleconferencing system & Fedora Gobby When: 2009-06-16 @ 14:00 UTC == Meeting Guidelines & Agenda == 1) Each person gets five minutes to say whatever they want. Suggested questions to answer: a) What went well? b) What could have gone better? c) If time and resources were not an issue, what three things would make Fedora 12 our best release ever? 2) While the speaker has the floor nobody can interrupt or correct what they are saying --there are no "wrong" ideas --other participants can seek clarification from speaker after they are done 3) Other attendees will help capture points raised in gobby 4) Open discussion and go forward plans after each person has had an opportunity to speak == Meeting Outcomes == o Individual feedback (see below) o John Poelstra will create a wiki version of these notes and post link to in email recap to fedora-advisory-board --https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Retrospective_Notes o Jesse suggested checking back in a month to see how we are doing on the things we said we said we wanted to change --email is fine; telephone not required o Jesse strongly urged people on the call to take the proposals from the recent FAD back to their teams --feedback needed ASAP --will affect many parts of Fedora --https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Activity_Day_Fedora_Development_Cycle_2009#Resulting_Output o John Poelstra encourage attendees to blog about this meeting to give a wider audience an understanding of what the meeting was like and what they thought about it o The Fedora CMS (Zicula) will affect a lot of groups in Fedora --We need a point person to coordinate these efforts for our greatest chance at success --No one has been identified o ADDED AFTER THE FACT by John Poelstra --Anyone is free to tag onto the end of the wiki document to add their own feedback --https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Retrospective_Notes#Additional_Feedback_Outside_of_the_Meeting == Legend == (+) Went well (-) Could have gone better (w) Wish-list--no limits--everyone CAN have a pony == Jon Stanley (jds2001) - fesco == (+) Feature process went well --good contingency plans (-) X item fell through the cracks (-) Meeting minutes creation failed (+) Started using a minute meeting bot (w) Massive QA testing (w) Earlier freezing/branching for critical packages == Eric Christensen (Sparks) - docs == (-) Release notes churn at the last minute --some is legitimately unforeseen, other notes just not timely enough (-) docs.fedoraproject.org page doesn't flow well --languages hard to find (+) Turned out more guides and docs than past releases (+) use of Red Hat guides that were relicensed (w) Zikula CMS --will replace the existing docs.fp.o (w) standardize and focus on release notes and meet more users point == Jarod Wilson (j-rod) - FESCo == (+) Feature process went smoothly--deadlines understood and less confusion (+) No major disagreements within FESCo (-) No major disagreements within FESCo (-) Meeting minutes (-) Collection of public feedback not optimal (need more _constructive_ feedback) (-) Secondary architecture team updates (w) Focused Fedora kernel QA effort--build up community == John J. McDonough (jjmcd) - docs == (+) people were great (+) use of publican went surprisingly well (+) install guide is the best we've ever had (-) integrating milestones better into schedule (-) pushing to docs.fedoraproject.org is an ugly process --Too many formats (-) Need more packagers on the docs team (w) More engagement with developers/determining who to talk to (w) PackageKit get fixed --problems finding application to click on (w) Problems with wireless on NetworkManager == Edward Kirk (tk009) - BugZappers == (+) Communication really good about what was going on between all the teams and across the project (+) More people are joining the project and contributing (-) Blocker bugs were not handled very well (-) Problems at the end with Anaconda --identifying blocker bugs before the last minute (w) A more solid, stable release that is technically better than anything else out there == James Laska (jlaska) - QA == (+) 20 test days--way more than F10 (+) Documentation around test days and how to create live images, etc. (+) Test results reporting (+) Common F11 Bugs --multiple teams were invested in success (+) Community testing (-) No specific test days for Sound (-) No concept of capacity (-) Clarify hand off procedures between Release Engineering & QA for RC --"who has the ball?" (-) Transparency around release readiness decision and whether to slip --public discussion & publish minutes (-) Automation of testing (-) No metrics around health of QA community (w) Micro-communities around each of the features --specific dashboard --blocker bug tracking (w) Community test case management system == Adam Williamson (adamw) - QA/BugZappers == (-) reading several reviews that Fedora 11 is un-installable (-) unclear how to get in late release notes additions in a cooperative way (+) Test Days were fantastic (+) BugZappers and QA wiki spaces were substantially revised (w) A massive testing lab (w) Improving kernel triage for future releases == Bruno Wolff - Games Spin == (+) Help from Jeremy Katz to enhance livecd-tools for larger games iso size (+) Rawhide updates come quickly from the mirrors and Koji (+) test days were helpful and gave focus to people (+) New Spin process documentation got developed --specific test instructions are now available (-) Broken installer and video got in the way of testing --painful when rawhide was broken (-) We don't have a process for maintaining recurring spins (w) Less broken stuff (w) Spins process document finished (w) Lots of test days (w) More with live USB with persistent storage == Jack Aboutboul & Steven Moix - Marketing == (+) Lots of progress restructuring the marketing team (+) Release schedule helped cross team coordination (-) Need to identify task inter dependencies and add them to the schedule (-) Better capture things that get accomplished (+) Inter group communication with Art, Translation, etc. (w) Host mini-meetings with different teams throughout the release cycle (+) Continuous content production --building up and telling stories (w) Fedora Magazine (+) Tracking press reports in different languages (w) Finding a better way to do metrics to identify how far our reach is and understand audience (w) More marketing to younger audiences and greater public awareness == Ricky Zhou - Websites== (+) two or three people helping consistently with Web team tasks (-) Late changes from marketing and docs team which had minor impact (w) Add a review period so that issues can be identified and corrected before release == Mairin Duffy - Design == (-) Need to see feedback to the Design list as opposed to sprung on blogs (w) Six more designers on the team! (w) pink pony!!!!11!! == Jesse Keating - Release Engineering == (+) Better involvement with QA and Triage --improved confidence in QA beating on the trees (+) Did a better job of managing the blocker lists (+) Good help from others verifying blocker bugs (+) Test Days ... more feature owners are requesting targeted testing (+) No last minute compose-related surprises (-) Better communication around what testing needs to be done --improve capture of testing outside of the matrix (mailing lists) (-) Clearer guidelines around code changes (+) FAD Proposals - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Activity_Day_Fedora_Development_Cycle_2009#Resulting_Output (w) earlier review blocker bugs --maybe weekly after we branch (w) automated QA which provides automatic feedback == J?hann B. Gu?mundsson - QA Team== (w) Taking test days to the next level --improved advertisement --re-use live images for additional testing (w) coordinate with upstream testing (w) litmus testing system added to Fedora --litmus is coded to be quite mozilla-specific (according to jlaska) (w) Use of Fedora QA Trac system to track request from maintainers (w) Host test day without requiring maintainer present (-) lack consensus amongst maintainers if a reporter is supposed to report to our bugzilla or upstream one (w) Daily scheduled testing on components. == Todd Zullinger -- Websites Team == (+) more complete translations than we've had before (+) Infrastructure team syncing release content earlier than past releases (w) relocate everyone to a tropical island where we can all work together in person == Mike McGrath - Infrastructure == (+) team is growing (-) multiple release slips hindered work in infrastructure due to freezes --one big slip would be nicer (w) Feature freezes in earlier (w) Contingency plans for core distro functionality (w) Look for key ways that Infrastructure can enable success of QA Team == Paul Frields == (+) Well coordinated for the releases including slip announcements (+) Ambassadors did a great job behind the scenes --media production --release parties (-) Feedback mechanisms are unclear and point to too many different places --documentation and marketing materials --could anaconda bug reporting mechanism be helped by design team? (w) Marketing, Docs, Website, Design team work on coordinated approach to the Zicula (CMS) --organized and well coordinated fashion (w) More forceful in not allowing late/invasive changes to rawhide and putting them off to next release From soylentman at gmail.com Wed Jun 17 15:59:34 2009 From: soylentman at gmail.com (andy york) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:59:34 -0400 Subject: domain name with fedora in it Message-ID: <4a19b02f0906170859g322a0166i1b0ae4885b895c04@mail.gmail.com> Greetings, After becoming more involved with Fedora, it has come to my attention that permission is required to use the word "fedora" in a domain name. This was unknown to me prior to this week. I'm writing to request an agreement form for the domain name FEDORAGEEKS.COM which I have owned for some time already. Thus far I have only used it as a developmental site, but am considering putting up some content and don't want to waste time uselessly. Any help with this will be appreciated. I can be reached via email or at 919 632-7084 if need be. Best regards, andy york andyyork.com From stickster at gmail.com Wed Jun 17 17:12:06 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:12:06 -0700 Subject: domain name with fedora in it In-Reply-To: <4a19b02f0906170859g322a0166i1b0ae4885b895c04@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a19b02f0906170859g322a0166i1b0ae4885b895c04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090617171206.GC4947@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:59:34AM -0400, andy york wrote: > Greetings, > > After becoming more involved with Fedora, it has come to my attention > that permission is required to use the word "fedora" in a domain name. > This was unknown to me prior to this week. I'm writing to request an > agreement form for the domain name FEDORAGEEKS.COM which I have owned > for some time already. Thus far I have only used it as a developmental > site, but am considering putting up some content and don't want to > waste time uselessly. Any help with this will be appreciated. > > I can be reached via email or at 919 632-7084 if need be. Andy, I'll be happy to work with you on this. What I would suggest is that you take a look at our guidelines page first, and I'll email you out of band to get some more details about your site. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#Domain_names -- 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 ian at ianweller.org Wed Jun 17 23:20:26 2009 From: ian at ianweller.org (Ian Weller) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:20:26 -0500 Subject: recording more metrics and doing more data mining about Fedora Message-ID: <20090617232025.GH17062@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> I'm starting up a project to help everybody in Fedora by combining statistical (not personal!) data retrieved from FAS, repositories in Fedora Hosted, mailing lists, translations, and whatever else we can possibly get our hands on to produce reports that help us see trends in the activity of contributors, both new and old. With this project, we'll be better able to understand the effects of certain marketing techniques or development on what we can measure as "activity" within the project. Other advantages may be seen as well. Now, I'm simply starting this -- I don't have any shiny graphs to show you just yet. But what I do need people to do is let me know what sort of statistics would help them with what they do. It is also beneficial to include things that we are already getting statistics on, or that we previously received statistics for, so that these can all be integrated into the same system. Here's where to submit your ideas: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Data_mining_use_cases I'll be mostly AFK until the next weekend is over, so please surprise me with your ideas :) If you have any questions, please get in touch with me. -- Ian Weller GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Jun 18 00:16:49 2009 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:16:49 -0800 Subject: recording more metrics and doing more data mining about Fedora In-Reply-To: <20090617232025.GH17062@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> References: <20090617232025.GH17062@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> Message-ID: <604aa7910906171716g14fc021v5722f2d272f89de4@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ian Weller wrote: > Now, I'm simply starting this -- I don't have any shiny graphs to show > you just yet. But what I do need people to do is let me know what sort > of statistics would help them with what they do. It is also beneficial > to include things that we are already getting statistics on, or that we > previously received statistics for, so that these can all be integrated > into the same system. > > Here's where to submit your ideas: > ?https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Data_mining_use_cases Hmm...right up my alley. For the data mining and visualization back end.. what's the tech you are going to use? to build up the scripted automation? I should probably learn whatever it is you plan to use for visualization. -jef From ian at ianweller.org Thu Jun 18 03:43:07 2009 From: ian at ianweller.org (Ian Weller) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:43:07 -0500 Subject: recording more metrics and doing more data mining about Fedora In-Reply-To: <604aa7910906171716g14fc021v5722f2d272f89de4@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090617232025.GH17062@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> <604aa7910906171716g14fc021v5722f2d272f89de4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090618034307.GI3930@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 04:16:49PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Ian Weller wrote: > > Now, I'm simply starting this -- I don't have any shiny graphs to show > > you just yet. But what I do need people to do is let me know what sort > > of statistics would help them with what they do. It is also beneficial > > to include things that we are already getting statistics on, or that we > > previously received statistics for, so that these can all be integrated > > into the same system. > > > > Here's where to submit your ideas: > > ?https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Data_mining_use_cases > > Hmm...right up my alley. > :) I was told by someone that it would be. > For the data mining and visualization back end.. what's the tech you > are going to use? to build up the scripted automation? I should > probably learn whatever it is you plan to use for visualization. > I haven't yet investigated very much in the project -- I was assigned this as part of my internship under Max Spevack today. If you'd like to provide some options for me, that'd be wonderful. The idea that's currently in my head is to create a repository of a bunch of Python scripts that return a specific type of data -- perhaps a count of something over time, etc., that can be called via a specific method and told to generate data, which would then get sucked into whatever visualization backend we find. -- Ian Weller GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jspaleta at gmail.com Thu Jun 18 04:01:53 2009 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:01:53 -0800 Subject: recording more metrics and doing more data mining about Fedora In-Reply-To: <20090618034307.GI3930@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> References: <20090617232025.GH17062@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> <604aa7910906171716g14fc021v5722f2d272f89de4@mail.gmail.com> <20090618034307.GI3930@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> Message-ID: <604aa7910906172101k714730dag716319ce240fb6de@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Ian Weller wrote: > The idea that's currently in my head is to create a repository of a > bunch of Python scripts that return a specific type of data -- perhaps a > count of something over time, etc., that can be called via a specific > method and told to generate data, which would then get sucked into > whatever visualization backend we find. My understanding is EKG has been ported to python... you should look into that as the basis for mailinglist data mining. I've been sitting on a python based apache access log parser that Ive been meaning to push into fedorahosted git as "EEG" It was meant as a pythonic extensible replacement for the map making so we can eventually do crap like hook it into the turbogears based infrastructure. I can punt that over for you and let you run with it and see if you can build it up further. But honestly TG is way over my head at the monent. What I do my heavy analysis lifting with is matplotlib, but that might not be most appropriate for scripted Fedora data mining long term...not for visualization at least. You might want to ping luke macken and see how he creates the graphs for bodhi's web interface and what the plans are for data visualization widgets for Fedora Community. If he can spin up simple line,bar, and pie graphs widgets that we can plug data into that should cover most trending needs. I'd like a better solution for maps than matplotlib that integrates with the TG infrastructure but I don't know what that would be. I'm willing to help implement Fedora Community widget sets once someone more experienced than myself points me to reasonable candidate visualization toolkits....i know enough about matplotlib to know its too heavy of a hammer for this. Beyond that, we should definitely look at using code swarm and make videos of different types of contribution. Like a code swarm of wiki edits or mailinglist activity and other such contribution where we can hang a username off the activity. -jef From ian at ianweller.org Thu Jun 18 04:15:41 2009 From: ian at ianweller.org (Ian Weller) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:15:41 -0500 Subject: recording more metrics and doing more data mining about Fedora In-Reply-To: <604aa7910906172101k714730dag716319ce240fb6de@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090617232025.GH17062@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> <604aa7910906171716g14fc021v5722f2d272f89de4@mail.gmail.com> <20090618034307.GI3930@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> <604aa7910906172101k714730dag716319ce240fb6de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090618041541.GT3930@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 08:01:53PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Ian Weller wrote: > > The idea that's currently in my head is to create a repository of a > > bunch of Python scripts that return a specific type of data -- perhaps a > > count of something over time, etc., that can be called via a specific > > method and told to generate data, which would then get sucked into > > whatever visualization backend we find. > > My understanding is EKG has been ported to python... you should look > into that as the basis for mailinglist data mining. > > I've been sitting on a python based apache access log parser that Ive > been meaning to push into fedorahosted git as "EEG" > It was meant as a pythonic extensible replacement for the map making > so we can eventually do crap like hook it into the turbogears based > infrastructure. > I can punt that over for you and let you run with it and see if you > can build it up further. > Right now I just want to create the scripts and then the interface that sits on top of those and runs them and keeps a database of data. Integration with our infrastructure is beyond what I'm currently envisioning. > But honestly TG is way over my head at the monent. What I do my heavy > analysis lifting with is matplotlib, but that might not be most > appropriate for scripted Fedora data mining long term...not for > visualization at least. > > You might want to ping luke macken and see how he creates the graphs > for bodhi's web interface and what the plans are for data > visualization widgets for Fedora Community. If he can spin up simple > line,bar, and pie graphs widgets that we can plug data into that > should cover most trending needs. I'd like a better solution for maps > than matplotlib that integrates with the TG infrastructure but I don't > know what that would be. I'm willing to help implement Fedora > Community widget sets once someone more experienced than myself points > me to reasonable candidate visualization toolkits....i know enough > about matplotlib to know its too heavy of a hammer for this. > I'll look through the code for bodhi. Max and I were talking about integrating this into Community as well. -- Ian Weller GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36 -------------- 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 Tue Jun 23 14:51:27 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:51:27 +0200 Subject: June 2009 Fedora Board election results Message-ID: <20090623145127.GA4056@localhost.localdomain> Election Results for Fedora Board - June 2009 Voting Period: 07 June 2009 00:00:00 UTC to 22 June 2009 23:59:59 UTC Nominations: * David Nalley (ke4qqq) * Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore) * Josh Boyer (jwb) * Mike McGrath (mmcgrath) * Tom Callaway (spot) Outcomes: As defined in the election text, the three (3) candidate(s) with the greatest number of votes will be elected for a full, two release cycle term. Information: At close of voting there were: 8163 users eligable to vote 297 valid ballots Using the Fedora Range Voting method, each candidate could attain a maximum of 1485 votes (5*297). Results: 1. Tom Callaway (spot) 1192 2. Mike McGrath (mmcgrath) 985 3. Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore) 727 - --[ Cut Off ]-- 4. Josh Boyer (jwb) 717 5. David Nalley (ke4qqq) 505 As such, Tom Callaway, Mike McGrath and Dennis Gilmore are elected to the Fedora Board for a complete two release cycle term. As always, I'd like to thank our community for participating in the election, Matt Domsch for coordinating the town hall meetings for the candidates, and Nigel Jones for setting up and administering the voting process. * * * * * There are a few individuals under consideration for the final appointed Board seat. This appointment is made after elections are completed to balance the Board's composition, and represent the entire Fedora community as much as possible. Although this appointment is ultimately up to the Fedora Project Leader to decide, generally the FPL discusses the appointments with others to achieve a consensus. I expect to make this final appointment within the next few days. The last meeting of the current Board will be this Thursday, June 25th. The first meeting of the new Board will be the following Thursday, July 2, which is also a public IRC 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 jaa at redhat.com Fri Jun 19 15:30:49 2009 From: jaa at redhat.com (Jack Aboutboul) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:30:49 -0400 Subject: recording more metrics and doing more data mining about Fedora In-Reply-To: <20090617232025.GH17062@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> References: <20090617232025.GH17062@hovercraft.mobile.ianweller.org> Message-ID: <4A3BAF29.9000203@redhat.com> Ian, Thanks for posting this. Its very promising. As a matter of fact, I know that there are a number of us that are interested in this and certain groups already their own tools to measure certain things. I think it might be beneficial for us to all get on a conf call or figure out some commonly suitable meeting time and forum to get together and discuss this as a whole group. What do you (or anyone else for tha matter) think? It's something I would like to see happen, because it will drive more focused goal setting especially in Marketing, but it has implications all over the place. Jack Ian Weller wrote: > I'm starting up a project to help everybody in Fedora by combining > statistical (not personal!) data retrieved from FAS, repositories in > Fedora Hosted, mailing lists, translations, and whatever else we can > possibly get our hands on to produce reports that help us see trends in > the activity of contributors, both new and old. > > With this project, we'll be better able to understand the effects of > certain marketing techniques or development on what we can measure as > "activity" within the project. Other advantages may be seen as well. > > Now, I'm simply starting this -- I don't have any shiny graphs to show > you just yet. But what I do need people to do is let me know what sort > of statistics would help them with what they do. It is also beneficial > to include things that we are already getting statistics on, or that we > previously received statistics for, so that these can all be integrated > into the same system. > > Here's where to submit your ideas: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Data_mining_use_cases > > I'll be mostly AFK until the next weekend is over, so please surprise me > with your ideas :) If you have any questions, please get in touch with > me. > > From stickster at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 14:51:27 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:51:27 +0200 Subject: June 2009 Fedora Board election results Message-ID: <20090623145127.GA4056@localhost.localdomain> Election Results for Fedora Board - June 2009 Voting Period: 07 June 2009 00:00:00 UTC to 22 June 2009 23:59:59 UTC Nominations: * David Nalley (ke4qqq) * Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore) * Josh Boyer (jwb) * Mike McGrath (mmcgrath) * Tom Callaway (spot) Outcomes: As defined in the election text, the three (3) candidate(s) with the greatest number of votes will be elected for a full, two release cycle term. Information: At close of voting there were: 8163 users eligable to vote 297 valid ballots Using the Fedora Range Voting method, each candidate could attain a maximum of 1485 votes (5*297). Results: 1. Tom Callaway (spot) 1192 2. Mike McGrath (mmcgrath) 985 3. Dennis Gilmore (dgilmore) 727 - --[ Cut Off ]-- 4. Josh Boyer (jwb) 717 5. David Nalley (ke4qqq) 505 As such, Tom Callaway, Mike McGrath and Dennis Gilmore are elected to the Fedora Board for a complete two release cycle term. As always, I'd like to thank our community for participating in the election, Matt Domsch for coordinating the town hall meetings for the candidates, and Nigel Jones for setting up and administering the voting process. * * * * * There are a few individuals under consideration for the final appointed Board seat. This appointment is made after elections are completed to balance the Board's composition, and represent the entire Fedora community as much as possible. Although this appointment is ultimately up to the Fedora Project Leader to decide, generally the FPL discusses the appointments with others to achieve a consensus. I expect to make this final appointment within the next few days. The last meeting of the current Board will be this Thursday, June 25th. The first meeting of the new Board will be the following Thursday, July 2, which is also a public IRC 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: -------------- next part -------------- -- fedora-announce-list mailing list fedora-announce-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-announce-list From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 01:58:16 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:58:16 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) Message-ID: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the Release Notes and the Installation Guide. Currently the works are under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. This move is supported (actually, recommended) by Red Hat's Legal team. The full discussion with Richard Fontana occured on fedora-docs-list[1] and via fedora-legal-list[2]. It is worth reviewing to understand approaches for past and future works. Richard states in his initial opinion in reply to Spot: On Tue, 26 May 2009 17:29:20 -0400 "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > I know Richard reads fedora-legal-list, so I'll wait for him to > chime in, but in the past, he's expressed that he would very > much like for us to move the wiki from OPL to CC-BY-SA. Such a decision should be made by Fedora qua Fedora, consistent with Fedora's licensing guidelines and general rationality (which is true of the current situation with the use of the OPL and would be true if the license of choice were CC-BY-SA instead). Arguably, the Docs Team could proceed with a relicensing for e.g. Release Notes and Installation Guide simply by discussing with the Fedora Project Board. However, it is clear to us that we should consider relicensing the entire fedoraproject.org/wiki, probably all of fedoraproject.org/.*, and perhaps make it the default unless otherwise specified for *.fedoraproject.org. I am now here to get Fedora Project's opinion/consensus/decision on this ("... decision ... by Fedora qua Fedora ...") Thanks - Karsten Cc: fedora-docs-list at redhat.com [1] Original thread: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-April/msg00061.html ... and gains momentum here: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-May/msg00130.html [2] Paul bounces the thread to fedora-legal-list: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-May/msg00042.html ... and Richard Fontana replies: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-May/msg00045.html http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-May/msg00047.html -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Thu Jun 25 05:52:50 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:22:50 +0530 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <4A4310B2.7080602@fedoraproject.org> On 06/25/2009 07:28 AM, Karsten Wade wrote: > The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that > cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the > Release Notes and the Installation Guide. Currently the works are > under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. What about Red Hat documentation team? Are they switching as well? If not, how does this affect the idea of Fedora being upstream for Red Hat docs as well? Rahul From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 08:29:30 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:29:30 +0200 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <20090625082930.GB3525@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:58:16PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that > cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the > Release Notes and the Installation Guide. Currently the works are > under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. > > This move is supported (actually, recommended) by Red Hat's Legal > team. The full discussion with Richard Fontana occured on > fedora-docs-list[1] and via fedora-legal-list[2]. It is worth > reviewing to understand approaches for past and future works. > > Richard states in his initial opinion in reply to Spot: > > On Tue, 26 May 2009 17:29:20 -0400 > "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > > > I know Richard reads fedora-legal-list, so I'll wait for him to > > chime in, but in the past, he's expressed that he would very > > much like for us to move the wiki from OPL to CC-BY-SA. > > Such a decision should be made by Fedora qua Fedora, consistent > with Fedora's licensing guidelines and general rationality (which > is true of the current situation with the use of the OPL and would > be true if the license of choice were CC-BY-SA instead). > > Arguably, the Docs Team could proceed with a relicensing for > e.g. Release Notes and Installation Guide simply by discussing with > the Fedora Project Board. However, it is clear to us that we should > consider relicensing the entire fedoraproject.org/wiki, probably all > of fedoraproject.org/.*, and perhaps make it the default unless > otherwise specified for *.fedoraproject.org. > > I am now here to get Fedora Project's opinion/consensus/decision on > this ("... decision ... by Fedora qua Fedora ...") IMHO, a move to CC BY-SA is more supportive of Fedora's mission to promote free and interchangeable content, and makes sense. -- 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 bob at fedoraunity.org Thu Jun 25 11:06:15 2009 From: bob at fedoraunity.org (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <15772575.74651245927802369.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <6890463.74671245927974920.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> ----- "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > IMHO, a move to CC BY-SA is more supportive of Fedora's mission to > promote free and interchangeable content, and makes sense. > Does anyone remember why "CC BY SA" was not chosen over the OPL when we went through all this a few years ago? Is this just all part of the Creative Commons marketing effort? An effort that is failing for me, the idea of a "CC" license is diluted and confused by all the different options. It seems today everyone has to have a (CC) license, soon to become the "Members Only" jacket of the early 80's? -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob at fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From bob at fedoraunity.org Thu Jun 25 11:31:46 2009 From: bob at fedoraunity.org (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:31:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <33297283.74701245928960512.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <13597090.74721245929506399.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> ----- "Robert 'Bob' Jensen" wrote: > Does anyone remember why "CC BY SA" was not chosen over the OPL when > we went through all this a few years ago? Is this just all part of the > Creative Commons marketing effort? An effort that is failing for me, > the idea of a "CC" license is diluted and confused by all the > different options. It seems today everyone has to have a (CC) license, > soon to become the "Members Only" jacket of the early 80's? > I guess my question was, is this change for the sake of change? Nothing gained from how I read Richard's comment. -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob at fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From luis.villa at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 11:40:45 2009 From: luis.villa at gmail.com (Luis Villa) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:40:45 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <13597090.74721245929506399.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> References: <33297283.74701245928960512.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> <13597090.74721245929506399.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440906250440i6a541e0es55e18a6f5a209438@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > > ----- "Robert 'Bob' Jensen" wrote: >> Does anyone remember why "CC BY SA" was not chosen over the OPL when >> we went through all this a few years ago? Is this just all part of the >> Creative Commons marketing effort? An effort that is failing for me, >> the idea of a "CC" license is diluted and confused by all the >> different options. It seems today everyone has to have a (CC) license, >> soon to become the "Members Only" jacket of the early 80's? >> > > I guess my question was, is this change for the sake of change? Nothing gained from how I read Richard's comment. Two primary things gained: * CC-SA is a much more readable, simple license than OPL. That is a good thing in and of itself. * if you're trying to build a real commons, where people share content with each other and build off each other's work, it behooves you to use a commonly used license. I've literally never seen OPL used anywhere other than Fedora; CC-SA is one of the most broadly used copyright licenses on the planet, especially now that Wikipedia has dumped GFDL. As a result of the switch, Fedora doc writers will now have access to a vast source of images and text which they can freely use in their own writing, without worries about legal complications. Those sound like big benefits to me. Luis From chris at tylers.info Thu Jun 25 12:37:46 2009 From: chris at tylers.info (Chris Tyler) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:37:46 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 18:58 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that > cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the > Release Notes and the Installation Guide. Currently the works are > under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. I agree that CC is a much better choice than OPL. How do we make this relicensing work? I.e., if contributor X agreed that their content could be used under the OPL, how is it that we can just take that content and distribute it under a different license? I don't remember if the CLA has any wording on this. (Obviously the intention of the licenses is very similar, but nonetheless it seems like a murky situation. We did have someone withdraw from Fedora and take their toys with them when we last made a license change on the the wiki, IIRC). -Chris From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 15:10:15 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:10:15 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <6890463.74671245927974920.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> References: <6890463.74671245927974920.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <4A439357.1000903@redhat.com> On 06/25/2009 07:06 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > ----- "Paul W. Frields" wrote: >> IMHO, a move to CC BY-SA is more supportive of Fedora's mission to >> promote free and interchangeable content, and makes sense. >> > > Does anyone remember why "CC BY SA" was not chosen over the OPL when we went through all this a few years ago? Is this just all part of the Creative Commons marketing effort? An effort that is failing for me, the idea of a "CC" license is diluted and confused by all the different options. It seems today everyone has to have a (CC) license, soon to become the "Members Only" jacket of the early 80's? If memory serves, we originally inherited the OPL from Red Hat when Fedora came into existence. The OPL isn't really a great documentation license, IMHO, and changing to CC-BY-SA, which is more broadly accepted and understood by the larger community is a benefit to us. AFAIK, no one from the Creative Commons has asked us to make this change. ~spot From luis.villa at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 15:18:17 2009 From: luis.villa at gmail.com (Luis Villa) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:18:17 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <4A439357.1000903@redhat.com> References: <6890463.74671245927974920.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> <4A439357.1000903@redhat.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440906250818g467f7e6enaad7bfe4e78dfb42@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > AFAIK, no one from the Creative Commons has asked us to make this change. And it would have been a good idea even if they had. ;) Luis From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 15:24:13 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:24:13 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> Message-ID: <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> On 06/25/2009 08:37 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 18:58 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: >> The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that >> cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the >> Release Notes and the Installation Guide. Currently the works are >> under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. > > I agree that CC is a much better choice than OPL. > > How do we make this relicensing work? I.e., if contributor X agreed that > their content could be used under the OPL, how is it that we can just > take that content and distribute it under a different license? I don't > remember if the CLA has any wording on this. (Obviously the intention of > the licenses is very similar, but nonetheless it seems like a murky > situation. We did have someone withdraw from Fedora and take their toys > with them when we last made a license change on the the wiki, IIRC). Well, basically, we really should ask the contributors to consent to the relicensing, and get their "written" permission in email. Technically, these contributions were made under the terms of the CLA, and unless those folks explicitly stated that their contributions were under the OPL, Fedora is technically able to relicense those contributions however we desire. I say "technically" a lot there, because I do not want to leverage that. I think the clear intent of contributors contributing to an OPL licensed document is that their contributions are under OPL terms. In fact, I want to remove that loophole in the next revision of the Fedora CLA. So, we should just go ahead and get permission from all the contributors (writers and translators) to relicense their works, and if anyone does not give permission, we should remove/replace their contribution. ~spot From bob at fedoraunity.org Thu Jun 25 15:33:54 2009 From: bob at fedoraunity.org (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:33:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <2902811.74921245943905793.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <19240084.74941245944033868.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> ----- "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: > If memory serves, we originally inherited the OPL from Red Hat when > Fedora came into existence. The OPL isn't really a great > documentation > license, IMHO, and changing to CC-BY-SA, which is more broadly > accepted > and understood by the larger community is a benefit to us. > > AFAIK, no one from the Creative Commons has asked us to make this > change. > NO we made a switch from some other license to OPL because the other license was not great for documentation. The OPL was picked because at the time we were to inherit a bunch of documentation from Red Hat's RHEL docs. Not sure that has ever really happened on the scale that anyone hoped. I did not intend to suggest that Creative Commons was directly behind this change. The popularity of (CC) in the last couple years has bloomed it is nearly viral. While the licenses may be very good I still feel having a (CC) logo really is a fashion statement, plus everyone else is doing it... Hopefully these are not the concious reasons that the change is being made. For those that are too young to understand my "members only" jacket reference. At some point everyone traded their shiny nylon jackets for these "members only" brand jackets. And I do mean EVERYONE. Later the Members Only jackets were replaced by acid washed denim. -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob at fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From bkearney at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 15:35:58 2009 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:35:58 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <19240084.74941245944033868.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> References: <19240084.74941245944033868.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <4A43995E.4000202@redhat.com> Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > ----- "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: >> If memory serves, we originally inherited the OPL from Red Hat when >> Fedora came into existence. The OPL isn't really a great >> documentation >> license, IMHO, and changing to CC-BY-SA, which is more broadly >> accepted >> and understood by the larger community is a benefit to us. >> >> AFAIK, no one from the Creative Commons has asked us to make this >> change. >> > > NO we made a switch from some other license to OPL because the other license was not great for documentation. The OPL was picked because at the time we were to inherit a bunch of documentation from Red Hat's RHEL docs. Not sure that has ever really happened on the scale that anyone hoped. > > I did not intend to suggest that Creative Commons was directly behind this change. The popularity of (CC) in the last couple years has bloomed it is nearly viral. While the licenses may be very good I still feel having a (CC) logo really is a fashion statement, plus everyone else is doing it... Hopefully these are not the concious reasons that the change is being made. > > For those that are too young to understand my "members only" jacket reference. At some point everyone traded their shiny nylon jackets for these "members only" brand jackets. And I do mean EVERYONE. Later the Members Only jackets were replaced by acid washed denim. > > -- Bob > Dont forget the buttons on the jean jackets. They rocked. -- bk From jonstanley at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 15:49:35 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:49:35 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > So, we should just go ahead and get permission from all the contributors > (writers and translators) to relicense their works, and if anyone does > not give permission, we should remove/replace their contribution. How does this work for defunct accounts? For example, I made a contribution and then disappeared - my email address doesn't work, for example. From jonstanley at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 15:54:54 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:54:54 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <1245944453.4359.13.camel@thunder> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <20090625153215.GA21440@zaphod.zach.tk> <1245944453.4359.13.camel@thunder> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Eric Christensen wrote: > Could we setup a vote and give access to all those in the groups of > Docs, translators, etc and if we get any no votes we request them send a > message to someone or a group or a list and explain why they don't want > to change? I would think that you would require the explicit consent of every contributor in order to relicense. If if we technically don't according to the CLA, it would still be the Right Thing To Do(TM). From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 16:03:34 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:03:34 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> On 06/25/2009 11:49 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Tom "spot" > Callaway wrote: > >> So, we should just go ahead and get permission from all the contributors >> (writers and translators) to relicense their works, and if anyone does >> not give permission, we should remove/replace their contribution. > > How does this work for defunct accounts? For example, I made a > contribution and then disappeared - my email address doesn't work, for > example. We make every effort to track down that person, and if it is ultimately impossible, we remove their contribution(s) from the "CC-BY-SA" licensed version of the document(s). ~spot From notting at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 17:21:50 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:21:50 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap - 2009-06-25 Message-ID: <20090625172150.GA30895@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Meeting was cancelled for lack of quorum (mostly due to LinuxTag/FUDCon.) Bill From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 19:14:08 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:14:08 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <19240084.74941245944033868.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> References: <2902811.74921245943905793.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> <19240084.74941245944033868.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <20090625191408.GD10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:33:54PM +0000, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > > NO we made a switch from some other license to OPL because the other > license was not great for documentation. The OPL was picked because > at the time we were to inherit a bunch of documentation from Red > Hat's RHEL docs. Not sure that has ever really happened on the scale > that anyone hoped. Yes, that content injection began this January/February. For example, the expanded Fedora Installation Guide inherited a ton of content from the RHT team. The new Security Guide and the SELinux Guide are similar. We switched from the GFDL to the OPL because it was a better license and would let us get work from e.g. RHT. At that time, we had several discussions with RHT Legal, who at the time were concerned about some items in the CC licenses (1.1 or something) that have since been ironed out or resolved. Luis' reply in the correct one -- we gain immensely from joining a wider content commons. I think the OPL's author's comments in the threads I referenced are poignant, too. > I did not intend to suggest that Creative Commons was directly > behind this change. The popularity of (CC) in the last couple years > has bloomed it is nearly viral. While the licenses may be very good > I still feel having a (CC) logo really is a fashion statement, plus > everyone else is doing it... Hopefully these are not the concious > reasons that the change is being made. Not at all. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 19:22:53 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:22:53 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090625192253.GE10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:03:34PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 06/25/2009 11:49 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Tom "spot" > > Callaway wrote: > > > >> So, we should just go ahead and get permission from all the contributors > >> (writers and translators) to relicense their works, and if anyone does > >> not give permission, we should remove/replace their contribution. > > > > How does this work for defunct accounts? For example, I made a > > contribution and then disappeared - my email address doesn't work, for > > example. > > We make every effort to track down that person, and if it is ultimately > impossible, we remove their contribution(s) from the "CC-BY-SA" licensed > version of the document(s). To be honest, I presumed we would use the CLA's nuclear option here and just relicense. When we went from GFDL to OPL we specifically had to ask everyone because none of the content works were under the Fedora CLA. The stated reasoning at the time iirc was, we wouldn't have to do this check with everyone again if we had to relicense because we had the CLA. So I get what you are saying, and I don't think we can do it. The amount of time it will take is huge, especially for the wiki. It's possible we could do it for the pure content guides, but we'd have to ensure that none of the content was tainted from the wiki. People reference bad publicity or a backlash if we just relicense under the CLA terms. Did Wikipedia contact every author/editor, only relicense their content if they approve, and remove the content if they did not approve? My argument is that the moving from a broken license to one that puts us clearly in the largest pool of open content commons is worth the unintended consequences of using the CLA's hammer. Isn't that what it is for? If we must contact each contributor, who have already clearly put their content under the CLA that clearly gives Fedora the right to adjust the licensing as needed, then I'm concerned the effort won't get done. It's an extremely non-trivial effort. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 19:37:00 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:37:00 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <4A4310B2.7080602@fedoraproject.org> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <4A4310B2.7080602@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20090625193700.GG10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:22:50AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 06/25/2009 07:28 AM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that > > cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the > > Release Notes and the Installation Guide. Currently the works are > > under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. > > What about Red Hat documentation team? Are they switching as well? If > not, how does this affect the idea of Fedora being upstream for Red Hat > docs as well? Before starting this thread I contacted the Content Services Director (Michael Hideo Smith), along with Richard Fontana. With the caveat that he is permitted to relicense *all* of their content to CC BY SA, Michael and Richard agreed Red Hat can and should do this as the upstream. So, this part is fortunately the least of our worries this time. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bob at fedoraunity.org Thu Jun 25 19:36:38 2009 From: bob at fedoraunity.org (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090625191408.GD10691@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <25106105.74981245958598130.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> ----- "Karsten Wade" wrote: > > Yes, that content injection began this January/February. For > example, > the expanded Fedora Installation Guide inherited a ton of content > from > the RHT team. The new Security Guide and the SELinux Guide are > similar. > > We switched from the GFDL to the OPL because it was a better license > and would let us get work from e.g. RHT. At that time, we had > several > discussions with RHT Legal, who at the time were concerned about some > items in the CC licenses (1.1 or something) that have since been > ironed out or resolved. > > Luis' reply in the correct one -- we gain immensely from joining a > wider content commons. I think the OPL's author's comments in the > threads I referenced are poignant, too. > > Not at all. > Based this explanation from Karsten I would have no remaining objections or questions about the change as long as the logistics are handled in the best way possible creating the least amount of ill feeling from our community. I think the community and contributors should be shown respect by sending out a form mass email to each directly, responses not required because of the CLA. -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob at fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 19:44:23 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:44:23 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> Message-ID: <20090625194423.GH10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:37:46AM -0400, Chris Tyler wrote: > > How do we make this relicensing work? I.e., if contributor X agreed that > their content could be used under the OPL, how is it that we can just > take that content and distribute it under a different license? I don't > remember if the CLA has any wording on this. My understanding when we did this last time was, "Since we are going to simultaneously get all of these people to sign the CLA, we now have a tool (hammer) that prevents us from having to ask permission if we need to relicense in the future." As such, it hadn't occurred to me until Spot specified that we might have to get individual approval or remove the contribution. > (Obviously the intention of > the licenses is very similar, but nonetheless it seems like a murky > situation. We did have someone withdraw from Fedora and take their toys > with them when we last made a license change on the the wiki, IIRC). Hmm, I'm not sure I recall having to remove wiki content, thank goodness. IIRC, everyone who had wiki edit rights signed the CLA. The one exception was an author who worked on a stand-alone guide (Jargon Buster), who did not want to relicense nor sign the CLA, and his content was removed. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 19:49:50 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:49:50 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <1245948840.4359.25.camel@thunder> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <20090625153215.GA21440@zaphod.zach.tk> <1245944453.4359.13.camel@thunder> <1245948840.4359.25.camel@thunder> Message-ID: <20090625194950.GI10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:54:00PM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote: > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:54 -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Eric > > Christensen wrote: > > > > > Could we setup a vote and give access to all those in the groups of > > > Docs, translators, etc and if we get any no votes we request them send a > > > message to someone or a group or a list and explain why they don't want > > > to change? > > > > I would think that you would require the explicit consent of every > > contributor in order to relicense. If if we technically don't > > according to the CLA, it would still be the Right Thing To Do(TM). > > > > Do the individual contributors retain copyright on things they submit to > the Fedora Project on behalf of the Fedora Project? Yes. The CLA is only a grant of a very broad copyright *license*; the author retains copyright, there is no copyright assignment going on. The broad copyright license AIUI (& IANAL) does give Fedora the right to relicense, even possibly works that were specifically licensed in contributing. That's one thing we are sloppy about in content, unlike code -- we don't have a LICENSE file for each contribution to make it clear what the license is, etc. The CLA provides a cover, if you don't specify, we'll put it under X license. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bob at fedoraunity.org Thu Jun 25 19:49:40 2009 From: bob at fedoraunity.org (Robert 'Bob' Jensen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090625194423.GH10691@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <10738840.75011245959380884.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> ----- "Karsten Wade" wrote: > > My understanding when we did this last time was, "Since we are going > to simultaneously get all of these people to sign the CLA, we now > have > a tool (hammer) that prevents us from having to ask permission if we > need to relicense in the future." As such, it hadn't occurred to me > until Spot specified that we might have to get individual approval or > remove the contribution. > > Hmm, I'm not sure I recall having to remove wiki content, thank > goodness. IIRC, everyone who had wiki edit rights signed the CLA. > The one exception was an author who worked on a stand-alone guide > (Jargon Buster), who did not want to relicense nor sign the CLA, and > his content was removed. > As I remember it there were a couple other items that were removed by their authors before they gave up their respective wiki accounts. -- Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Robert 'Bob' Jensen || Fedora Unity Founder | | bob at fedoraunity.org || http://fedoraunity.org/ | | http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/ | | http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 20:02:35 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:02:35 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <25106105.74981245958598130.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> References: <20090625191408.GD10691@calliope.phig.org> <25106105.74981245958598130.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <20090625200235.GJ10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:36:38PM +0000, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > I think the community and contributors should be shown respect by > sending out a form mass email to each directly, responses not > required because of the CLA. Perhaps that is a fair compromise. I'm still a'feared of what happens if anyone says "no", especially for wiki content. Unlike code, it is reasonably hard to determine what is a person's contribution once it has been through several edit and rewrites. Was that "the" your contribution or mine? If I use automation to remove all of your edits and go put in my own content, does it have to be different than what was there before? How do I determine what is a fair rewrite and what is just me paraphrasing with the same words? - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 20:03:58 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:03:58 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <10738840.75011245959380884.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> References: <20090625194423.GH10691@calliope.phig.org> <10738840.75011245959380884.JavaMail.root@zimbra.cbccgroup.com> Message-ID: <20090625200358.GK10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:49:40PM +0000, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > > ----- "Karsten Wade" wrote: > > > > Hmm, I'm not sure I recall having to remove wiki content, thank > > goodness. IIRC, everyone who had wiki edit rights signed the CLA. > > The one exception was an author who worked on a stand-alone guide > > (Jargon Buster), who did not want to relicense nor sign the CLA, and > > his content was removed. > > > > As I remember it there were a couple other items that were removed > by their authors before they gave up their respective wiki accounts. Thanks; I must have blanked that, since we didn't have to de-interleave the content. It must have been works that stood alone. IIRC, weren't they more concerned about the CLA (or unable to sign) and it wasn't about the license switch? - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 22:48:29 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:48:29 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090625192253.GE10691@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> <20090625192253.GE10691@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> On 06/25/2009 03:22 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > When we went from GFDL to OPL we specifically had to ask everyone > because none of the content works were under the Fedora CLA. The > stated reasoning at the time iirc was, we wouldn't have to do this > check with everyone again if we had to relicense because we had the > CLA. I think the important distinction that I missed was that I thought you were only referring to the reference documentation in the separate files (e.g. Release Guide), where there are well defined lists of the contributors. For the wiki, that task is far too major and we would definitely want to leverage the CLA to relicense that content. In the future, I want to retain that relicensing power for the wiki, but I think we can do so with a bit more finesse, e.g. something like: ***** Please note that all contributions to FedoraProject may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see FedoraProject:Copyrights for details). DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION! By making changes to the Fedora Project wiki, you are giving a contributed work to Fedora under the terms of the $CURRENTLICENSE, or a future Free Software License as determined by the Fedora Documentation Team. If you do not agree to this licensing grant, do not make any changes to the wiki. ***** My hope is that if we can do this, we can enable people to edit the wiki without requiring anyone to sign the CLA, as a lot (possibly most) of the "contributions" on the wiki are not individually copyrightable anyways. They'd still need to create a FAS user account to prevent wiki spam, but we remove some of the unnecessary stop energy. We would also still retain the nuclear option to relicense the wiki (which most people find acceptable), but we take it off the table for all other contributions (which most people do not find acceptable that Fedora/Red Hat could relicense at a whim). Of course, RH Legal might say that this isn't plausible, but it's my dream. ~spot From shaunm at gnome.org Thu Jun 25 15:40:49 2009 From: shaunm at gnome.org (Shaun McCance) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:40:49 -0500 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <1245944449.29465.177.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 18:58 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that > cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the > Release Notes and the Installation Guide. Currently the works are > under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. The Gnome documentation team is also moving to CC BY SA 3.0, away from the GFDL. I hope this will help downstream changes or any upstreaming you might want to do in the future. By the way, I don't know if any of the documentation you make contains non-trivial code, but we were concerned about license restrictions for code, and we got the following boilerplate from the fine people at the SFLC: "This documentation is licensed under [licenses]. As a special exception, the copyright holders give you permission to copy, modify, and distribute the example code contained in this documentation under the terms of your choosing, without restriction." -- Shaun From eric at christensenplace.us Thu Jun 25 15:40:53 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:40:53 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090625153215.GA21440@zaphod.zach.tk> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <20090625153215.GA21440@zaphod.zach.tk> Message-ID: <1245944453.4359.13.camel@thunder> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 17:32 +0200, Zach Oglesby wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:24:13AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > On 06/25/2009 08:37 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 18:58 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > > >> The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that > > >> cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the > > >> Release Notes and the Installation Guide. Currently the works are > > >> under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. > > > > > > I agree that CC is a much better choice than OPL. > > > > > > How do we make this relicensing work? I.e., if contributor X agreed that > > > their content could be used under the OPL, how is it that we can just > > > take that content and distribute it under a different license? I don't > > > remember if the CLA has any wording on this. (Obviously the intention of > > > the licenses is very similar, but nonetheless it seems like a murky > > > situation. We did have someone withdraw from Fedora and take their toys > > > with them when we last made a license change on the the wiki, IIRC). > > > > Well, basically, we really should ask the contributors to consent to the > > relicensing, and get their "written" permission in email. Technically, > > these contributions were made under the terms of the CLA, and unless > > those folks explicitly stated that their contributions were under the > > OPL, Fedora is technically able to relicense those contributions however > > we desire. > > > > I say "technically" a lot there, because I do not want to leverage that. > > I think the clear intent of contributors contributing to an OPL licensed > > document is that their contributions are under OPL terms. In fact, I > > want to remove that loophole in the next revision of the Fedora CLA. > > > > So, we should just go ahead and get permission from all the contributors > > (writers and translators) to relicense their works, and if anyone does > > not give permission, we should remove/replace their contribution. > > > > ~spot > > That is a large task, Im not sure an email chain would be the best way to handel that, however I am not sure what is. Could we setup a vote and give access to all those in the groups of Docs, translators, etc and if we get any no votes we request them send a message to someone or a group or a list and explain why they don't want to change? I don't know how to handle contacting everyone that has submitted to the wiki if we are going to change licenses there. Thoughts? -- Thanks, Eric Christensen Fedora Docs Project Lead Fedora Talk: 5102043 Phone: 919-424-0063 x 5102043 E-Mail: sparks at fedoraproject.org SIP: sparks at talk.fedoraproject.org IRC: Sparks on freenode.net GPG Fingerprint: CA02 4ACA EB6C 1A76 F0D6 1127 7D04 D240 BD0C 14C1 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From eric at christensenplace.us Thu Jun 25 16:54:00 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:54:00 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <20090625153215.GA21440@zaphod.zach.tk> <1245944453.4359.13.camel@thunder> Message-ID: <1245948840.4359.25.camel@thunder> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:54 -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Eric > Christensen wrote: > > > Could we setup a vote and give access to all those in the groups of > > Docs, translators, etc and if we get any no votes we request them send a > > message to someone or a group or a list and explain why they don't want > > to change? > > I would think that you would require the explicit consent of every > contributor in order to relicense. If if we technically don't > according to the CLA, it would still be the Right Thing To Do(TM). > Do the individual contributors retain copyright on things they submit to the Fedora Project on behalf of the Fedora Project? Eric -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From eric at christensenplace.us Thu Jun 25 22:54:18 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:54:18 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> <20090625192253.GE10691@calliope.phig.org> <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1245970458.4359.41.camel@thunder> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:48 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 06/25/2009 03:22 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > When we went from GFDL to OPL we specifically had to ask everyone > > because none of the content works were under the Fedora CLA. The > > stated reasoning at the time iirc was, we wouldn't have to do this > > check with everyone again if we had to relicense because we had the > > CLA. > > I think the important distinction that I missed was that I thought you > were only referring to the reference documentation in the separate files > (e.g. Release Guide), where there are well defined lists of the > contributors. For the wiki, that task is far too major and we would > definitely want to leverage the CLA to relicense that content. > There is still a problem, though. Most, if not all, of our guides start on the wiki. I know a lot of information that went into the Security Guide came from the wiki and thus from various developers. > > ~spot > Eric -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Jun 25 23:13:57 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:13:57 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <1245948840.4359.25.camel@thunder> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <20090625153215.GA21440@zaphod.zach.tk> <1245944453.4359.13.camel@thunder> <1245948840.4359.25.camel@thunder> Message-ID: <4A4404B5.1050209@redhat.com> On 06/25/2009 12:54 PM, Eric Christensen wrote: > Do the individual contributors retain copyright on things they submit to > the Fedora Project on behalf of the Fedora Project? Yes. Nevertheless, all contributions at this point in time are covered by the CLA, and we possess the capacity to re-license them as we (Fedora/Red Hat) see fit. Some people are uncomfortable with that, which is why I have been looking at ways where we may be able to resolve that issue and limit that power without un-necessarily tying our hands. In addition, for a variety of reasons, many people will be unable to sign the CLA, and I was hoping to find ways to permit them to contribute small changes which are not of themselves significant enough to be copyrightable. This may be impossible though, so I might end up having to settle for rewording the CLA so that we have the power to use unlicensed contributions under the terms of a predefined Free license, or a later Free license of Fedora/Red Hat's choosing. ~spot From kwade at redhat.com Fri Jun 26 04:58:34 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:58:34 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> <20090625192253.GE10691@calliope.phig.org> <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090626045834.GM10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 06:48:29PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 06/25/2009 03:22 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > When we went from GFDL to OPL we specifically had to ask everyone > > because none of the content works were under the Fedora CLA. The > > stated reasoning at the time iirc was, we wouldn't have to do this > > check with everyone again if we had to relicense because we had the > > CLA. > > I think the important distinction that I missed was that I thought you > were only referring to the reference documentation in the separate files > (e.g. Release Guide), where there are well defined lists of the > contributors. For the wiki, that task is far too major and we would > definitely want to leverage the CLA to relicense that content. OK, thanks. Yes, one specific reason for taking this discussion to f-a-b is the wiki relicensing. For any guides worked on entirely as DocBook XML (Installation Guide, for example), we have the trail to touch the handful of authors and ask permission to relicense. Where we can easily do that, I reckon we should -- there are enough opinions in that direction, and I reckon I wouldn't mind the gesture. Sparks' point about content that sources from the wiki is a tough nut ... I'll reply back to him directly. > In the future, I want to retain that relicensing power for the wiki, but > I think we can do so with a bit more finesse, e.g. something like: [snip good text] Yes, I like that approach *a lot*. Haven't chatted with Ian about it, but I reckon he concurs; ISTR he voted for the Wikipedia license change, too. :) - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Fri Jun 26 05:22:12 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:22:12 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <1245970458.4359.41.camel@thunder> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> <20090625192253.GE10691@calliope.phig.org> <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> <1245970458.4359.41.camel@thunder> Message-ID: <20090626052212.GN10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 06:54:18PM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote: > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:48 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On 06/25/2009 03:22 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > When we went from GFDL to OPL we specifically had to ask everyone > > > because none of the content works were under the Fedora CLA. The > > > stated reasoning at the time iirc was, we wouldn't have to do this > > > check with everyone again if we had to relicense because we had the > > > CLA. > > > > I think the important distinction that I missed was that I thought you > > were only referring to the reference documentation in the separate files > > (e.g. Release Guide), where there are well defined lists of the > > contributors. For the wiki, that task is far too major and we would > > definitely want to leverage the CLA to relicense that content. > > > > There is still a problem, though. Most, if not all, of our guides start > on the wiki. I know a lot of information that went into the Security > Guide came from the wiki and thus from various developers. Aye, there's the rub. I think only the Installation Guide doesn't have wiki sourcing in it. One difference going in to the future is that we have worked on having improved editing via the Docs CMS (Zikula), and I can foresee Docs moving most of this editing to the improved wysiwyg environment in Zikula. We could enact a different type of contribution policy for the Docs CMS than for the wiki, although I think we'd want to focus on keeping the barriers the same (i.e., no CLA per-se for the relnotes writing part of the CMS with a deeper reaching policy?) Perhaps we have a funnel+filter approach like this for any guide written on the wiki, from Release Notes to User Guide. Let's take the release notes beats as a use case: * Consider a new namespace ([[Relnote:]]?) if that helps us sequester that content better. * Make it clear that editing the relnotes on the wiki beyond a certain level may require a contribution agreement. * Minor edits and additions that are not copyrightable are considered safe for conversion from wiki to CLA-covered guides in an SCM. * Major edits and contributions require i) the editor actually have a CLA with Fedora Project, and ii) they agree to be tracked/included as an author. * When we include relnotes content, the Docs Team needs to add the steps of attributing contributions that are copyrightable. This is done by identifying the changes via the wiki history tool, then including a brief description and permanent URI for that history change in the SCM commit; ideally, one commit per attribution in some reasonable fashion. This allows tracking back for any future copyright requirements. Wow, that's a bit of extra work. Is it worth it? It might be necessary regardless. Automating the last step in some manner would be a good idea. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Fri Jun 26 05:33:38 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:33:38 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <1245944449.29465.177.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245944449.29465.177.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20090626053338.GO10691@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:40:49AM -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 18:58 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > > The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that > > cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the > > Release Notes and the Installation Guide. Currently the works are > > under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. > > The Gnome documentation team is also moving to CC BY SA 3.0, > away from the GFDL. I hope this will help downstream changes > or any upstreaming you might want to do in the future. That is great news! We used to borrow (in Fedora Docs) enormous chunks from the GNOME Documentation Style Guide, but had to give that up when we dropped using the GFDL. The Creative Commons mission seems to be working. I love how it took several versions to gain acceptance, just like software. > By the way, I don't know if any of the documentation you make > contains non-trivial code, but we were concerned about license > restrictions for code, and we got the following boilerplate > from the fine people at the SFLC: Good point to cover, let's keep an eye on any suggestions Spot brings forth and make sure there is a section like this for non-trivial code. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From luis.villa at gmail.com Fri Jun 26 11:01:12 2009 From: luis.villa at gmail.com (Luis Villa) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:01:12 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090626053338.GO10691@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245944449.29465.177.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090626053338.GO10691@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <2cb10c440906260401j22721c89l6c992fd240f86246@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:40:49AM -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 18:58 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: >> > The Docs Team has recently reached consensus to change licenses that >> > cover the various full-size guides the team works on, such as the >> > Release Notes and the Installation Guide. ?Currently the works are >> > under the OPL 1.0, and the intention is to switch to the CC BY SA 3.0. >> >> The Gnome documentation team is also moving to CC BY SA 3.0, >> away from the GFDL. ?I hope this will help downstream changes >> or any upstreaming you might want to do in the future. > > That is great news! ?We used to borrow (in Fedora Docs) enormous > chunks from the GNOME Documentation Style Guide, but had to give that > up when we dropped using the GFDL. > > The Creative Commons mission seems to be working. ?I love > how it took several versions to gain acceptance, just like software. Of course, they didn't get it right (3.0 still has the idiotic and useless DRM clause) but momentum and success makes up for a lot of flaws. ;) Luis From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jun 29 10:35:50 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:35:50 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <1246022068.4563.3.camel@thunder> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> <20090625192253.GE10691@calliope.phig.org> <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> <1245970458.4359.41.camel@thunder> <20090626052212.GN10691@calliope.phig.org> <1246022068.4563.3.camel@thunder> Message-ID: <20090629103550.GE22698@calliope.phig.org> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 09:14:28AM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote: > > Why would we allow people to not sign the CLA to write for the relnotes? > Don't we want contributors of Fedora to be our contributors for the > relnotes? Especially seeing as how this single document gets wedged > into every release and is posted or referred to in many other > announcements (i.e. high visibility). Please re-read the below funnel+filter, I think it addresses your questions. The CLA in this idea is required at a certain point in the contribution. Realize that if we could remove the CLA requirement for the rest of the wiki, that would be a good thing. We then need to deal with what happens when we want to convert that content to a guide, how much it is, etc. Since we have this already for the relnotes but in a centralized set of pages, perhaps we can be clever about it. - Karsten > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 22:22 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > > One difference going in to the future is that we have worked on having > > improved editing via the Docs CMS (Zikula), and I can foresee Docs > > moving most of this editing to the improved wysiwyg environment in > > Zikula. We could enact a different type of contribution policy for > > the Docs CMS than for the wiki, although I think we'd want to focus on > > keeping the barriers the same (i.e., no CLA per-se for the relnotes > > writing part of the CMS with a deeper reaching policy?) > > > > Perhaps we have a funnel+filter approach like this for any guide > > written on the wiki, from Release Notes to User Guide. Let's take the > > release notes beats as a use case: > > > > * Consider a new namespace ([[Relnote:]]?) if that helps us sequester > > that content better. > > > > * Make it clear that editing the relnotes on the wiki beyond a certain > > level may require a contribution agreement. > > > > * Minor edits and additions that are not copyrightable are considered > > safe for conversion from wiki to CLA-covered guides in an SCM. > > > > * Major edits and contributions require i) the editor actually have a > > CLA with Fedora Project, and ii) they agree to be tracked/included > > as an author. > > > > * When we include relnotes content, the Docs Team needs to add the > > steps of attributing contributions that are copyrightable. This is > > done by identifying the changes via the wiki history tool, then > > including a brief description and permanent URI for that history > > change in the SCM commit; ideally, one commit per attribution in > > some reasonable fashion. This allows tracking back for any future > > copyright requirements. > > > > Wow, that's a bit of extra work. Is it worth it? It might be > > necessary regardless. Automating the last step in some manner would > > be a good idea. > > > > - Karsten > -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jun 30 02:23:33 2009 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:23:33 -0700 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> <20090625192253.GE10691@calliope.phig.org> <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090630022333.GG28739@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 06:48:29PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 06/25/2009 03:22 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > When we went from GFDL to OPL we specifically had to ask everyone > > because none of the content works were under the Fedora CLA. The > > stated reasoning at the time iirc was, we wouldn't have to do this > > check with everyone again if we had to relicense because we had the > > CLA. > > I think the important distinction that I missed was that I thought you > were only referring to the reference documentation in the separate files > (e.g. Release Guide), where there are well defined lists of the > contributors. For the wiki, that task is far too major and we would > definitely want to leverage the CLA to relicense that content. Also consider that wiki content is converted to reference guides in a regular and ad hoc fashion, making this spaghetti even wackier. What do we ned to be be ready to invoke the CLA powers and relicense the wiki? Some more noise on the subject? I'll post for the Plant, maybe an article in FWN, ... where else? What else? - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Jun 30 23:06:37 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:06:37 -0700 Subject: Cross project mailing list Message-ID: <4A4A9A7D.2020406@redhat.com> 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. Thanks, John From eric at christensenplace.us Fri Jun 26 13:14:28 2009 From: eric at christensenplace.us (Eric Christensen) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:14:28 -0400 Subject: changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA) In-Reply-To: <20090626052212.GN10691@calliope.phig.org> References: <20090625015816.GC10691@calliope.phig.org> <1245933466.10234.124.camel@concord3.proximity.on.ca> <4A43969D.7090303@redhat.com> <4A439FD6.9050402@redhat.com> <20090625192253.GE10691@calliope.phig.org> <4A43FEBD.2000706@redhat.com> <1245970458.4359.41.camel@thunder> <20090626052212.GN10691@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <1246022068.4563.3.camel@thunder> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 22:22 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 06:54:18PM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:48 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > On 06/25/2009 03:22 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > > When we went from GFDL to OPL we specifically had to ask everyone > > > > because none of the content works were under the Fedora CLA. The > > > > stated reasoning at the time iirc was, we wouldn't have to do this > > > > check with everyone again if we had to relicense because we had the > > > > CLA. > > > > > > I think the important distinction that I missed was that I thought you > > > were only referring to the reference documentation in the separate files > > > (e.g. Release Guide), where there are well defined lists of the > > > contributors. For the wiki, that task is far too major and we would > > > definitely want to leverage the CLA to relicense that content. > > > > > > > There is still a problem, though. Most, if not all, of our guides start > > on the wiki. I know a lot of information that went into the Security > > Guide came from the wiki and thus from various developers. > > Aye, there's the rub. I think only the Installation Guide doesn't > have wiki sourcing in it. > > One difference going in to the future is that we have worked on having > improved editing via the Docs CMS (Zikula), and I can foresee Docs > moving most of this editing to the improved wysiwyg environment in > Zikula. We could enact a different type of contribution policy for > the Docs CMS than for the wiki, although I think we'd want to focus on > keeping the barriers the same (i.e., no CLA per-se for the relnotes > writing part of the CMS with a deeper reaching policy?) > > Perhaps we have a funnel+filter approach like this for any guide > written on the wiki, from Release Notes to User Guide. Let's take the > release notes beats as a use case: > > * Consider a new namespace ([[Relnote:]]?) if that helps us sequester > that content better. > > * Make it clear that editing the relnotes on the wiki beyond a certain > level may require a contribution agreement. > > * Minor edits and additions that are not copyrightable are considered > safe for conversion from wiki to CLA-covered guides in an SCM. > > * Major edits and contributions require i) the editor actually have a > CLA with Fedora Project, and ii) they agree to be tracked/included > as an author. > > * When we include relnotes content, the Docs Team needs to add the > steps of attributing contributions that are copyrightable. This is > done by identifying the changes via the wiki history tool, then > including a brief description and permanent URI for that history > change in the SCM commit; ideally, one commit per attribution in > some reasonable fashion. This allows tracking back for any future > copyright requirements. > > Wow, that's a bit of extra work. Is it worth it? It might be > necessary regardless. Automating the last step in some manner would > be a good idea. > > - Karsten Why would we allow people to not sign the CLA to write for the relnotes? Don't we want contributors of Fedora to be our contributors for the relnotes? Especially seeing as how this single document gets wedged into every release and is posted or referred to in many other announcements (i.e. high visibility). Eric -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com Tue Jun 30 04:23:06 2009 From: Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com (Alexey.Vasyukov at vdel.com) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:23:06 +0200 Subject: Trademark Guidance. Russian Fedora initiative. Message-ID: 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: 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. 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? 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? 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? 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? Thank you in advance for your help! If you need any additional information - let me know. Best regards, Alexey Vasyukov --- Alexey Vasyukov Consultant VDEL Ltd. Dmitriya Ulyanova str. 16/2, office 535-536 Moscow 117292 Russia Tel.: +7 495 956 68 95 Fax.: +7 495 956 28 78 Mobile: +7 926 550 89 60 alexey.vasyukov at vdel.com www.vdel.ru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rf-logo-draft-1.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 21358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rf-logo-draft-2.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 15983 bytes Desc: not available URL: