Fedora Board Recap 2009-04-29

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:37:21PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:18 PM, John Poelstra <poelstra at redhat.com> wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-04-29
 > ... snip ...
> >
> > == What is Fedora? ==
> > * previously:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-04-22#What_is_Fedora.3F
> > * Paul:
> > # Have we finished discussing this topic?
> > # What is the board's role: arbitrate problems or lead with new initiatives?
> 
> As someone who has been trying to understand the role of the board for
> a while I'm going to stop being so hard on myself for failing now. Was
> that a rhetorical question? If the board really does not know the role
> of the board I think it is a good time to take a deep breath.

This was a rhetorical question, posed because the Board's purpose is
to advise pieces of the Project.  At times we do that in a reactive
manner, and at times a more proactive role is called for.  It's always
a good thing for the Board to look at where it's been and where it's
going.  That's the reason why this discussion started.

> > Discussion occurred; proposals and decisions have been tabled to the next
> > meeting.
> >
> > ''' BRAINSTORMING FOLLOWS -- THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BOARD POLICY
> > OR DECISION '''
> >
> > * Paul
> > ** Is the board OK with the current process we are on surrounding defining
> > Fedora and its goals and purposes? ((have we answered this question?))
> 
> As a community member I would ask if the community is OK with the
> current process you are on surrounding defining Fedora and its goals
> and purposes?
>
> Are you just trying to capture the essence of what Fedora actually is
> in the new mission statement and related documents? In that case it
> would seem the community has already defined what Fedora is. Or do you
> feel you can define it to be what you want it to be irrespective of
> what it actually is today?

The first, definitely!  It is impossible and downright silly to simply
impose priorities on a community of contributors.  Instead, we are
trying to judge, based on what engages the community, and what the
community does effectively, to help make a better statement of
priorities.  That way, when new members of the community join, they
have a better idea how we are positioned in the panoply of free
software projects.

As an Ambassador, I'm sure you have seen that new members of the
Project are sometimes not aware of our goals and priorities, and we're
trying to improve that situation.  We can be very flexible as a
community in terms of trying new things, but there is also a need to
capture institutional knowledge in a way that helps new contributors.

We've had not one but numerous instances of other groups asking the
Board to clarify this.  It's clear they are looking to the Board for
leadership, and again, we're trying to provide it.  That requires
discussion and thought, and you see that reflected in the notes I
hope.
 
> > ** Suggests that board next move forward with a prioritized list of goals
> > for Fedora. To do that we need a foundation for what Fedora is about
> > ** How do we decide what is most important to Fedora? ((have we answered
> > this question?))
> 
> I don't think you get to decide this?! I suppose you can say X is most
> important but if X isn't  most important to the Fedora community it
> isn't going to mean anything to say that it is.

No one's deciding about direction for the purpose of foisting it on
the community, but I admit that statement in the minutes is a pretty
loose translation of what we actually talked about.  We've been trying
to transcribe more carefully but when conversation gets very involved
it can be hard to capture all the nuances.  A better way of stating it
would be that we talked about the need to pursue ways of moving Fedora
forward.  And to do that, we can't just go in a million directions and
hope one ends up working.  Even a community as large and thriving as
Fedora doesn't have unlimited people and time.

> > ** Could this affect release processes and policies and what drives them?
> > ** How does the board help guide and lead the project?
> > * Matt: board should be more than judges, we should lead new initiatives
> 
> As a community grows the role of a governance body like the board's
> changes over time or it becomes a hindrance rather than a help to the
> community.
> 
> When the project was new, lots needed to be done to get some coherent
> structure in the community, not to mention getting the community built
> to start with. Things settle for a while, the community forms into
> some more or less stable shape. This shape isn't ideal and to resolve
> structural problems the board sees opportunities to lead new
> initiatives to reorganize things into a more coherent community
> structure. Things again settle into a new more or less stable shape.
> Not seeing the sorts of opportunities for leadership that existed in
> the earlier periods the board begins wondering what its purpose is.
> This might just be a good thing indicating that the project is well
> structured and moving in a positive direction.

I don't think this is a case where the Board is doubting whether it
has a purpose, it's one of deciding how to spend our time and agenda.  

> Sometimes it is best to just let the horse run. Other times the horse
> needs encouragement and guidance. The great jockeys are the ones that
> know when to sit back and enjoy the ride.
> 
> I don't presume to know if this is one of those times, but wouldn't
> rule it out.

We'll try not to do that either, thanks for taking the time to write
this.

-- 
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