From duffy at fedoraproject.org Mon Oct 5 21:38:33 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhaXLDrW4gRHVmZnk=?=) Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:38:33 -0400 Subject: get.fedoraproject.org redesign mockups Message-ID: <4ACA6759.9040407@fedoraproject.org> Hi folks, I just finished up the final mockups for get.fedoraproject.org. These were originally due last Friday, so I apologize for the delay [1]. Here's what we've got: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Get.fpo For reference the spins mockups from a little over a week ago are here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Spins.fpo These should be fairly familiar to a lot of folks since we went over the pencil sketches for these in a board meeting not long ago and those sketches have been available for a while [2]. Let me know what you think! ~m [1] I was really sick last week and ended up taking a sick day on Friday. [2] e.g., http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/temp/woot/getfedora_desktop-tab.png From ian at ianweller.org Mon Oct 5 21:52:42 2009 From: ian at ianweller.org (Ian Weller) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:52:42 -0500 Subject: Docs preparing to convert to Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 Unported license Message-ID: <20091005215242.GA10890@deathray.l.ianweller.org> Today, the Docs team finalized the conversion of the licensing of our documentation and project content from the Open Publication License (OPL) to a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). Docs originally reached a consensus to change the license in June 2009, and after answering questions raised by the community, the Docs team decided to go ahead with the transition. While OPL is a free and open documentation license, moving to a more widely known and adopted license and the one used by the likes of Wikipedia and GNOME Project helps us share our content more easily with the rest of the Free software community. Additional information can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Relicensing_OPL_to_CC_BY_SA We'd like to thank Tom 'spot' Callaway, Fedora's legal ninja, and Richard Fontana of Red Hat Legal for their help with the conversion. We look forward to continue working with the community and share our documentation freely. -- Ian Weller "Why, a four-year-old could understand this report. Find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it." -- Groucho Marx, "Duck Soup" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From poelstra at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 04:11:41 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:11:41 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" Message-ID: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. Here I go :) 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things forward and own these issues. Are there any board members that disagree? Speak now or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's agenda since January 2009. For some of us, since we joined in July 2009. I'm proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of FUDCon." This means that by the time we leave FUDCon the first part of December 2009, this issue will be officially closed and off our agenda until there is a reason to revisit it and we can start 2010 with a clean slate. Are there any board members who would not be able to commit to this goal? 3) I am proposing a few unanswered questions that must be answered to bring greater clarity to why Fedora exists and what it seeks to accomplish which will allow us to close this issue. I'd wager that answering these questions will require each of us to sit down and spend some time thinking about them vs. replying in 5 minutes to this email. Naturally we'd also love feedback from everyone on this list. (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe narrow the definition to "default spin")--without a clear target audience for our product there is a lack of clarity around when we are "done." It also makes it difficult to make decisions about release quality and release composition. (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distirbution to look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What should those be? (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Fedora Project to look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What should those be? (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed by the release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a better product or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What should those things be? This is a great opportunity for each board member to state their position so that the community can see where we each stand on these issues. John From poelstra at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 04:22:04 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:22:04 -0700 Subject: get.fedoraproject.org redesign mockups In-Reply-To: <4ACA6759.9040407@fedoraproject.org> References: <4ACA6759.9040407@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4ACC176C.1080505@redhat.com> M?ir?n Duffy said the following on 10/05/2009 02:38 PM Pacific Time: > Hi folks, > > I just finished up the final mockups for get.fedoraproject.org. These > were originally due last Friday, so I apologize for the delay [1]. > > Here's what we've got: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Get.fpo > > For reference the spins mockups from a little over a week ago are here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Spins.fpo > > These should be fairly familiar to a lot of folks since we went over the > pencil sketches for these in a board meeting not long ago and those > sketches have been available for a while [2]. > > Let me know what you think! Looks like a great improvement to me! Thanks for all your hard work overhauling these pages and the overall design. Do you think we can still go live with this for Fedora 12? Can you stage the a beta version of the pages so that we can all help you test them out? John From jeff at ocjtech.us Wed Oct 7 05:29:32 2009 From: jeff at ocjtech.us (Jeffrey Ollie) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:29:32 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <935ead450910062229y22bb2723t6791b7377b1523de@mail.gmail.com> John, thanks for getting this discussion started. I'm not on the board, but I thought that I'd weigh in with a few words. I recently completed the practical portion of the Boy Scout's Wood Badge training. For those that are not familiar, the Wood Badge is Boy Scout's highest level of leadership training (if you have the opportunity I highly recommend it). As a part of that training, we spent a lot of time talking about values, mission statements, vision statements and goals[1]. I won't go into a lot of detail here, but let me crib from my notes: Values: core beliefs or desires that guide or motivate our attitudes and actions Examples: Merck: http://www.merck.com/about/mission.html 3M: http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/about-3M/information/about/us/ Mission statements: A brief statement that reflects the core values of an organization and communicates the organizations long-term objectives - why the organization exists. Examples: Merck: http://www.merck.com/about/mission.html Starbucks: http://www.starbucks.com/mission/ Vision statements: A vision is a picture of future success. Examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouRbkBAOGEw#t=8m40s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbUtL_0vAJk#t=11m59s Goals: statements of action or intent that will bring you closer to your vision. Goals should be SMART[2]. Ok, so Fedora isn't the Boy Scouts, but leadership skills transcend organizations and I hope that by defining the above we can really take Fedora to the next level. Obviously, I have some idea as to what Fedora's values, mission, and vision should be but I thought that this message would stir the pot enough for now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_planning [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_%28project_management%29 -- Jeff Ollie From stickster at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 13:31:43 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:31:43 -0400 Subject: get.fedoraproject.org redesign mockups In-Reply-To: <4ACC176C.1080505@redhat.com> References: <4ACA6759.9040407@fedoraproject.org> <4ACC176C.1080505@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091007133143.GJ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:22:04PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > M?ir?n Duffy said the following on 10/05/2009 02:38 PM Pacific Time: > >Hi folks, > > > >I just finished up the final mockups for get.fedoraproject.org. > >These were originally due last Friday, so I apologize for the > >delay [1]. > > > >Here's what we've got: > > > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Get.fpo > > > >For reference the spins mockups from a little over a week ago are here: > > > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009/Mockups/Spins.fpo > > > >These should be fairly familiar to a lot of folks since we went > >over the pencil sketches for these in a board meeting not long ago > >and those sketches have been available for a while [2]. > > > >Let me know what you think! > > Looks like a great improvement to me! Thanks for all your hard work > overhauling these pages and the overall design. +100. I think that Mo noted somewhere in the mockups that there's a missing element, which is the route for a person who is looking to update their existing Fedora system. It might be just a single page that's in order, and the flow itself is mostly there already. > Do you think we can still go live with this for Fedora 12? Can you > stage the a beta version of the pages so that we can all help you > test them out? The websites team, Hiemanshu and Sijis in particular, have been working on these pages. To test them, here's what you need to do: $ su -c 'yum groupinstall "Web Server"' $ su -c 'yum install git gettext python-genshi babel' $ git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/fedora-web.git # ~37 MB $ cd fedora-web/fedoraproject.org $ make $ make test Then point your web browser at http://localhost:5000/ to see results. The folks on the Websites team could use some help in getting the HTML and CSS done to support the mockup designs. I've advertised on some social networking feeds -- assistance would be appreciated! -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 13:47:51 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:47:51 -0400 Subject: get.fedoraproject.org redesign mockups In-Reply-To: <20091007133143.GJ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACA6759.9040407@fedoraproject.org> <4ACC176C.1080505@redhat.com> <20091007133143.GJ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091007134751.GL28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Sorry to reply to myself, but: On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:31:43AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > $ su -c 'yum groupinstall "Web Server"' > $ su -c 'yum install git gettext python-genshi babel' > $ git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/fedora-web.git # ~37 MB Fixing next line: $ cd fedora-web/spins.fedoraproject.org # This is what's done so far > $ make > $ make test -- 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 inode0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 14:57:19 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:57:19 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:11 PM, John Poelstra wrote: > > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html I'm going to poke my nose in again to let you all know that these discussions fill me with trepidation. Back during previous discussions about the mission statement I asked bluntly if that was the vision of the board or if that was a restatement by the board of the vision of the community? I believe I was told in no uncertain terms it was the latter and that eased my concerns about that discussion. (I still have concern that by codifying the current state we turn it into dogma and the long term effect of injecting dogma into the culture I believe will stifle the creativity and innovation of our contributors.) > At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. Here I > go :) > > 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things forward > and own these issues. ?Are there any board members that disagree? ?Speak now > or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) > > 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's agenda > since January 2009. ?For some of us, since we joined in July 2009. ?I'm > proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of FUDCon." ?This means > that by the time we leave FUDCon the first part of December 2009, this issue > will be officially closed and off our agenda until there is a reason to > revisit it and we can start 2010 with a clean slate. ?Are there any board > members who would not be able to commit to this goal? By resolve I assume you mean define what Fedora is and answer the attendant questions? As opposed to saying we aren't going to do this? Is the board in this case restating what Fedora is based on what the community has made it or is the board deciding what it wants Fedora to be and telling the community to make that vision happen? From what snippets of this conversation the public gets to see I'm sensing it is the latter. I can't imagine you can get a clear answer to the question of Fedora's target audience from the community because there isn't one as focused in scope as you seem to want. I ask that you be open to idea that even though the community doesn't self-organize into a tradition business model with clearly defined statements of its long-term goals that the other positive benefits that flow from that self-organization might outweigh that perceived shortcoming. > 3) I am proposing a few unanswered questions that must be answered to bring > greater clarity to why Fedora exists and what it seeks to accomplish which > will allow us to close this issue. ?I'd wager that answering these questions > will require each of us to sit down and spend some time thinking about them > vs. replying in 5 minutes to this email. Naturally we'd also love feedback > from everyone on this list. > > (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe narrow > the definition to "default spin")--without a clear target audience for our > product there is a lack of clarity around when we are "done." ?It also makes > it difficult to make decisions about release quality and release > composition. > > (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distirbution to look > like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. ?What should > those be? Would you like to start the ball rolling by suggesting one or two yourself? This is so vague I have no idea what you have in mind. From my perspective, and I believe that my perspective is shared by many Fedora users, the strides made improving the distribution over the past 5 years are simply stunning and overwhelmingly positive. What were the broad goals from the Fedora board that drove that progress in the distribution? (The merger is one likely thing that contributed to it but I don't really know the full background of where that came from, are there others?) > (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Fedora Project to look > like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. ?What should > those be? I'd be interested in your broad goals here too. > (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed by the > release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a better product > or the Fedora Project a stronger community. ?What should those things be? This is a good question although I don't think you should limit yourselves to things that can be fixed by F13 since finding ways to empower the community to fix things often takes longer than a few months. John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 15:09:58 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:09:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:11 PM, John Poelstra wrote: > > > > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html > > I'm going to poke my nose in again to let you all know that these > discussions fill me with trepidation. Back during previous discussions > about the mission statement I asked bluntly if that was the vision of > the board or if that was a restatement by the board of the vision of > the community? I believe I was told in no uncertain terms it was the > latter and that eased my concerns about that discussion. (I still have > concern that by codifying the current state we turn it into dogma and > the long term effect of injecting dogma into the culture I believe > will stifle the creativity and innovation of our contributors.) > I've said it on the board list so I'll say it here. I strongly believe that volunteers can be lead and I believe volunteers can lead. Right now Fedora is a place for everyone to just come and do whatever they want which is harming us in the long term. There's plenty of room for everyone in the Linux universe. I understand that by narrowing our focus we might lose some contributors who disagree with our values and mission. But that's better then not having one and having volunteers work against eachother because they joined The Fedora Project thinking it was one thing only to find it's something else. > > At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. Here I > > go :) > > > > 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things forward > > and own these issues. ?Are there any board members that disagree? ?Speak now > > or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) > > > > 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's agenda > > since January 2009. ?For some of us, since we joined in July 2009. ?I'm > > proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of FUDCon." ?This means > > that by the time we leave FUDCon the first part of December 2009, this issue > > will be officially closed and off our agenda until there is a reason to > > revisit it and we can start 2010 with a clean slate. ?Are there any board > > members who would not be able to commit to this goal? > > By resolve I assume you mean define what Fedora is and answer the > attendant questions? As opposed to saying we aren't going to do this? > > Is the board in this case restating what Fedora is based on what the > community has made it or is the board deciding what it wants Fedora to > be and telling the community to make that vision happen? From what > snippets of this conversation the public gets to see I'm sensing it is > the latter. I can't imagine you can get a clear answer to the question > of Fedora's target audience from the community because there isn't one > as focused in scope as you seem to want. I ask that you be open to > idea that even though the community doesn't self-organize into a > tradition business model with clearly defined statements of its > long-term goals that the other positive benefits that flow from that > self-organization might outweigh that perceived shortcoming. > It's very clear that Fedora isn't a standard business that fits into a normal business model. That doesn't mean we can't be without visions, goals and a plan for our future. I think a lot of my concern with this area (I campaigned on this :) has been that there is no expectation about what Fedora is when people join. Once there here it's not clear who they're doing their work for (the end user of the Fedora operating system). Engineering it and then letting whoever wants to use it use it is the reverse of the way things should be done. -Mike From notting at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 15:00:59 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:00:59 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091007150057.GB2250@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: > 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's > agenda since January 2009. For some of us, since we joined in July > 2009. I'm proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of > FUDCon." This means that by the time we leave FUDCon the first part > of December 2009, this issue will be officially closed and off our > agenda until there is a reason to revisit it and we can start 2010 > with a clean slate. Are there any board members who would not be > able to commit to this goal? ... there is an election coming after F12 is released, turning over (potentially) 4 board members. We can still tackle this before then, of course. Bill From poelstra at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 15:37:08 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:37:08 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091007150057.GB2250@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007150057.GB2250@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACCB5A4.7080503@redhat.com> Bill Nottingham said the following on 10/07/2009 08:00 AM Pacific Time: > John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: >> 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's >> agenda since January 2009. For some of us, since we joined in July >> 2009. I'm proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of >> FUDCon." This means that by the time we leave FUDCon the first part >> of December 2009, this issue will be officially closed and off our >> agenda until there is a reason to revisit it and we can start 2010 >> with a clean slate. Are there any board members who would not be >> able to commit to this goal? > > ... there is an election coming after F12 is released, turning > over (potentially) 4 board members. We can still tackle this before > then, of course. > Even better reason to close out this topic and also a great opportunity for the voters to better understand the position of the candidates. In reply to a previously asked question, by "close out" I mean address this topic significantly enough so that it can be dropped from the agenda of future board meetings and if questions are raised we have sufficient detail on the wiki to point people to. And if from time to time the wiki is not sufficient we make minor tweaks instead of having restart the whole discussion and discuss for another six months. John From stickster at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 15:36:49 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:36:49 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> ** interrupting my longer original response to include some input on this subthread ** On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:09:58AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:11 PM, John Poelstra wrote: > > > > > > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html > > > > I'm going to poke my nose in again to let you all know that these > > discussions fill me with trepidation. Back during previous discussions > > about the mission statement I asked bluntly if that was the vision of > > the board or if that was a restatement by the board of the vision of > > the community? I believe I was told in no uncertain terms it was the > > latter and that eased my concerns about that discussion. (I still have > > concern that by codifying the current state we turn it into dogma and > > the long term effect of injecting dogma into the culture I believe > > will stifle the creativity and innovation of our contributors.) > > > > I've said it on the board list so I'll say it here. I strongly believe > that volunteers can be lead and I believe volunteers can lead. Right now > Fedora is a place for everyone to just come and do whatever they want > which is harming us in the long term. There's plenty of room for everyone > in the Linux universe. I understand that by narrowing our focus we might > lose some contributors who disagree with our values and mission. But > that's better then not having one and having volunteers work against > eachother because they joined The Fedora Project thinking it was one thing > only to find it's something else. I think this is precisely right. The reason Fedora works, and can innovate quickly, is because we are not a popular democracy. We are a meritocracy in which leadership comes from people who have the passion to make their vision happen. Look at the North American Ambassadors program in which John works as an example. The many advances over the last two years that have happened there, have happened *precisely* because the people who were interested in the work moved things forward through their own time and toil. It would be naive for Board members to think that because of a certain organizational position, they're somehow going to ignore the community and force an incredibly unpopular vision on the community. Everyone on the Board does understand that there is no magic wand to wave, and in the end we'll all have to participate in discussing and solving the issues together. That's the point of having this conversation here on FAB. The Board's mission is to guide and lead[1], and we require elections for this leadership body to ensure that people on the Board are empowered to do that by the community. Over the years the Fedora Project has had a Board, we've never to my knowledge had the Board take some crazy direction that the majority of the community found unpalatable. No one is suggesting that the Fedora Project should suddenly change its stance on freedom, its desire to release great free and open source software to the world, or its ability to provide people of any walk of life a place where they can build cool communities of contribution. But we should absolutely not shirk from a responsibility not just to continually innovate in code, but also to allow Fedora to shake off current or perceived barriers to growth and participation. * * * [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board#Introduction -- 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 mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 15:59:52 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:59:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, John Poelstra wrote: > > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html > > At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. Here I > go :) > > 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things forward > and own these issues. Are there any board members that disagree? Speak now > or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) > Agreed. > 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's agenda > since January 2009. For some of us, since we joined in July 2009. I'm > proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of FUDCon." This means that > by the time we leave FUDCon the first part of December 2009, this issue will > be officially closed and off our agenda until there is a reason to revisit it > and we can start 2010 with a clean slate. Are there any board members who > would not be able to commit to this goal? > Committed. I'd also like to state that I'm willing to admit that I'm in the minority in my thinking on this subject and will, of course, respect and honor the final outcome even if it does not align with my personal beliefs. > 3) I am proposing a few unanswered questions that must be answered to bring > greater clarity to why Fedora exists and what it seeks to accomplish which > will allow us to close this issue. I'd wager that answering these questions > will require each of us to sit down and spend some time thinking about them > vs. replying in 5 minutes to this email. Naturally we'd also love feedback > from everyone on this list. > > (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe narrow the > definition to "default spin")--without a clear target audience for our product > there is a lack of clarity around when we are "done." It also makes it > difficult to make decisions about release quality and release composition. > Experienced users and people that wish to aid in leading our industry through contribution, experimentation and science. (inventors, tinkerers, hackers) > (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distirbution to look > like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What should > those be? > 1) An easy automated way to provide tests and the answers to those tests. IE: QA, targeted metric for some given configuration. 2) More ISVs and start-ups have packages in the distribution. 3) More Architectures. "Does Fedora run on $TOASTER?" Yes. 4) A better reputation as a place to bring new ideas to be tested and presented as well as a better acceptance that failure of a new idea is not a bad thing. 5) By F15 I'd like to see a killer virtualization management system in Fedora. What we have now is a lot of disparate tools. All of which are getting better, none of which are on the level with the likes of vmware. > (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Fedora Project to look > like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What should > those be? > 1) Fedora is a laboratory where all the cool stuff happens. 2) Stronger ties to educational institutions for the purposes of using Fedora in education (like POSSE) and also a place where academics can come to communicate, present works, do demonstrations, etc. 3) A place where businesses and employees can come to work and collaborate towards common goals. Many businesses have started using FOSS, Fedora should lead them in how to take a step further and become a FOSS business. Also putting together better documentation on how and why employees are better employees when they work with FOSS projects. > (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed by the > release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a better product > or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What should those things be? > 1) QA. I list this first because not only does it obviously need to get better but it seems obvious it will get better. The QA team has lots of neat things coming down the pipe. 2) Better communication around how rawhide works. Both in terms of best practices in making changes to it and in communicating when updates are safe. (probably relates to 1, but can't entirely rely on that) 3) Related to 2) I'd like to see a way for our rawhide developers to have their own rawhide branches. Similar to how there are different kernel trees. This isn't so they can have their own distro. But so they can more easily put massive changes in place to be tested for some small period of time before it is merged with "Jesse's tree" :) 4) Better messaging systems for contributors and end users. Just in general a better experience in letting our users know what's going on in Fedora (news), what features are coming down the pipe (feature update vs just a normal update), etc. 5) Additional ways for people to contribute to via the Fedora Project that are not the distribution itself. Since I know there's a lot in the above, I'm going to blog, individually, about each statement made here for a clearer picture of what I mean. -Mike From inode0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 16:10:19 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:10:19 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > ... ?The reason Fedora works, and can > innovate quickly, is because we are not a popular democracy. ?We are a > meritocracy in which leadership comes from people who have the passion > to make their vision happen. ?Look at the North American Ambassadors > program in which John works as an example. ?The many advances over the > last two years that have happened there, have happened *precisely* > because the people who were interested in the work moved things > forward through their own time and toil. This was very heavily influenced by and the result of leaders in the community who had the vision to see an area within the project that had problems and empower a group of people to take ownership, become vested in the result, and get things done. If I haven't thanked Greg and whoever he worked with before I will now for doing that. I suspect this was an initiative from the community architecture team at Red Hat. Did Greg hand us a mission statement and a set of long term goals to meet? I don't recall that part if he did and I'm afraid we probably ignored it if it existed. We found direction in the common values of the Fedora community, they weren't written on a stone anywhere, but they weren't difficult to see. John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 16:15:57 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:15:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > ... ?The reason Fedora works, and can > > innovate quickly, is because we are not a popular democracy. ?We are a > > meritocracy in which leadership comes from people who have the passion > > to make their vision happen. ?Look at the North American Ambassadors > > program in which John works as an example. ?The many advances over the > > last two years that have happened there, have happened *precisely* > > because the people who were interested in the work moved things > > forward through their own time and toil. > > This was very heavily influenced by and the result of leaders in the > community who had the vision to see an area within the project that > had problems and empower a group of people to take ownership, become > vested in the result, and get things done. If I haven't thanked Greg > and whoever he worked with before I will now for doing that. I suspect > this was an initiative from the community architecture team at Red > Hat. > > Did Greg hand us a mission statement and a set of long term goals to > meet? I don't recall that part if he did and I'm afraid we probably > ignored it if it existed. We found direction in the common values of > the Fedora community, they weren't written on a stone anywhere, but > they weren't difficult to see. > If he had, how many people would he have sent it to? And they may not have been difficult to see back then, but they seem very difficult to see at present. -Mike From jwboyer at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 16:39:09 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:39:09 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091007163909.GB30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:59:52AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >Since I know there's a lot in the above, I'm going to blog, individually, >about each statement made here for a clearer picture of what I mean. Could you just reply to your own email a number of times or something? Putting it on a blog is going to divert discussion of this all over the place. josh From mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Oct 7 16:47:26 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:47:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091007163909.GB30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007163909.GB30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:59:52AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > >Since I know there's a lot in the above, I'm going to blog, individually, > >about each statement made here for a clearer picture of what I mean. > > Could you just reply to your own email a number of times or something? Putting > it on a blog is going to divert discussion of this all over the place. > Ehh, considering how long the bullet points were, I'd hate to send a dozen responses to my own emails (I think I've done enough of that already). I'll email the links when I'm done, if people are so inclined they can read the details and respond to the bullet points. -Mike From smooge at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 20:21:47 2009 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:21:47 -0600 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <80d7e4090910071321j2ff07fefk65288d51672c3300@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:10 AM, inode0 wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> ... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?The reason Fedora works, and can >> innovate quickly, is because we are not a popular democracy. ?We are a >> meritocracy in which leadership comes from people who have the passion >> to make their vision happen. ?Look at the North American Ambassadors >> program in which John works as an example. ?The many advances over the >> last two years that have happened there, have happened *precisely* >> because the people who were interested in the work moved things >> forward through their own time and toil. > > This was very heavily influenced by and the result of leaders in the > community who had the vision to see an area within the project that > had problems and empower a group of people to take ownership, become > vested in the result, and get things done. If I haven't thanked Greg > and whoever he worked with before I will now for doing that. I suspect > this was an initiative from the community architecture team at Red > Hat. > > Did Greg hand us a mission statement and a set of long term goals to > meet? I don't recall that part if he did and I'm afraid we probably > ignored it if it existed. We found direction in the common values of > the Fedora community, they weren't written on a stone anywhere, but > they weren't difficult to see. The issue is one of usual growth of a community. When something is small (100-1000 people) its easy for people to find direction and common values. However time and growth end up making this harder and harder to do with normal human tendencies to 'assume' its someone elses job to do something and to assume that they will complete whatever one wants... and then complaining loudly that they aren't getting it. At such points groups usually do 1 of 3 things: 1) Reach maximum social entropy because communication of goals, projects, and needs has become too lossy and emotional. 2) Reorganize, reprioritize, and figure out 'what it means' to be a group. This is usually through agreeing to agree on somethings and 'dropping' things that disagreement will occur. This can be seen as jettisoning various entropy and figuring out ways to continually do so. 3) Get replaced by either a new anarchy or a better organized group. Either one will have lower entropy and things 'flow' downhill. This is the point where things have gotten to in Fedora.. the anarchy has grown to where everyone's various ideas of what 'everyone' should be doing are becoming more of a headache: Why didn't you know we were doing $PROJECT and it was going to occur on $DAY. Why did you conspire to make $SOFTWARE to be default Why didn't you do a $ARCHITECTURE.. its a payback for $PROBLEM Why did $GROUP do $PROJECT. We were doing $PROJECT and told people on our {for i in $BLOG, $TWITTER, $MAIL, $WEBSITE, $FUDCON, $IRC_MEETING,} And then it all goes to the board as "Well we can't come to a decision that people say is unbiased so make the hard choice for us." Basically the organization has grown to where 2000+ people need better ways to communicate and figure out which of the 3 things they want to happen before 1 or 3 are 'forced' upon them. -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning From stickster at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 23:27:34 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 19:27:34 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:11:41PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html > > At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion > here. Here I go :) > > 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things > forward and own these issues. Are there any board members that > disagree? Speak now or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) > > 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's > agenda since January 2009. For some of us, since we joined in July > 2009. I'm proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of > FUDCon." This means that by the time we leave FUDCon the first part > of December 2009, this issue will be officially closed and off our > agenda until there is a reason to revisit it and we can start 2010 > with a clean slate. Are there any board members who would not be > able to commit to this goal? > > 3) I am proposing a few unanswered questions that must be answered > to bring greater clarity to why Fedora exists and what it seeks to > accomplish which will allow us to close this issue. I'd wager that > answering these questions will require each of us to sit down and > spend some time thinking about them vs. replying in 5 minutes to > this email. Naturally we'd also love feedback from everyone on this > list. > > (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe > narrow the definition to "default spin")--without a clear target > audience for our product there is a lack of clarity around when we > are "done." It also makes it difficult to make decisions about > release quality and release composition. We should concentrate on the default offering as our point of decision making for purposes of this discussion. One of the main purposes of custom spins is to enable different groups and teams to alter that target audience. For instance, the FEL spin is going to have a very different target audience from the default offering. As I pointed out in our last meeting, there is a useful discussion of community composition and how it affects perceptions here: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html In particular this very early sentence should be important in thinking about our target audience: "[A] tiny minority of users usually accounts for a disproportionately large amount of the content and other system activity." Note that the model shown in this article is supported by our experience of bringing users into the community to participate, first in limited ways and then (in some cases) more protracted and substantial ones. This is why I feel so strongly that we should not be assuming that the people we see every day in our roles in the Fedora community, participating and contributing in constructive ways, are de facto representative of our only target audience. Do we want those people involved? Almost invariably the answer is "yes." But there are many more people we reach, and more that we want to be reaching, to encourage an appreciation for sustainable software freedom, on the terms we set out in our mission and core values: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations I think it's a good idea for this discussion to concentrate not on how we aren't meeting this goal at present, but rather on where we want to be in the future. Here is the kind of lowest common denominator user for whom I would like Fedora to be the first choice of an operating system in the next two years. In terms of characteristics or approach, this person: * ...is switching from $OTHER_OS to free software after hearing or reading about it, or seeing it first hand. * ...expects things to "just work" as much as possible, and can sometimes be impatient as a result. * ...doesn't want to go back to $OTHER_OS, and is therefore willing to fiddle occasionally -- on the order of 10-15 minutes or less per month -- to avoid it. * ...accepts that software freedom has certain limitations, but wants to minimize (and if possible eliminate) any difference in capabilities vs. $OTHER_OS. * ...won't pay for software. * ...will contribute in the form of a bug report or helping others, if it's easy to do so with a few mouse clicks, but won't fill out long Web forms or do more than a sentence or so of typing. * ...is interested in sustainable practices in general, but is not necessarily fanatic -- recycles packaging and goods, thinks "buying local" is worthwhile, volunteers at something a few times a year. In terms of skills and knowledge, this person: * ...knows, or is capable of finding out, how to boot a system from an alternate device such as CD or USB. * ...is able to open applications and make selections as directed in documentation or by a support agent (be it human or not). * ...may not understand how free software is built, or how a free software project run (but is capable of learning). Clearly this person is not a developer, but including this person in our target audience does not disadvantage developers as end-users of the distribution. Focusing on this person's needs might mean that we the Fedora community might have to come up with better strategies for delivering software, or re-examine our release processes, or develop some new ways of creating the distribution/tree so that we can allow developers to maintain a high pace where appropriate, yet not have that boomerang on all users. > (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distirbution > to look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. > What should those be? The article goes on to show how this inequality skews perceptions of our actual users, and then goes on to point out some ways to overcome the inequities. One of the suggestions is to "make participation a side effect." This is something that we are still striving to do in the software we provide. We've made some advances in areas like ABRT, SELinux, and others. But, as I'm sure their worthy developers would agree, even those need refinement so that we are better leveraging our large user base into occasional participation, and giving them a clear path to increase that engagement with the Fedora Project. Looking back at the example profile above, this person may not be fanatical about software freedom when trying Fedora *for the first time*. But by providing an improved experience for that person, we smooth the way for then taking on the specific goal of education in the context of making participation a side effect of using Fedora. Right now we provide little to a Fedora user out of the box, in the way of educating them where Fedora comes from, the enormous size of our community of contribution, and how we encourage sustainable software freedom. We can and should do better, especially with our unique positioning in terms of innovation and leadership. We can also do better in terms of improving this person's experience with some simple regular processes like updates and upgrades; and finding, installing and accessing authoritative docs in the native language that answer Fedora-specific questions. I've heard a bit of preliminary rumbling about DSCM-like Rawhides -- a way for developers to have trees that move at their pace, and are possibly quite broken from time to time in ways that differ from each other. If we were able to develop such a scenario, why not also provide the flipside of this idea -- make the One True Rawhide the place where we take in changes that don't break the world, while they're cobbled on in the other trees? Whether this is an extension of the "KoPeR" idea or something entirely difficult, it merits serious consideration. > (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Project to > look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. > What should those be? By Fedora 16 (i.e. two years out): * Build a more robust presence and community in Africa, China, and Japan. * Complete package maintenance interface in one site (i.e. less or no shuttling between SCM, Koji, and Bodhi). * Using the Fedora Community Portal to connect new FAS members immediately with short-term tasks, and live mentors through a Web-based communication interface. Devote several FADs and FUDCon hackfests to coding the pieces needed as part of a planned project. > (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed > by the release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a > better product or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What > should those things be? I'll just add these to the mix: * A coordinated effort between Alpha and Beta (or even post-Beta) to file and fix more bugs as a community effort, perhaps in the form of a focused week of effort across the Fedora community. Community Architecture support for bug parties, say $50-75/group to pay for hacker snacks. * A central 'www.fedoracommunity.org' website that functions as a directory of other *.fedoracommunity.org domains -- the ones run by our community members that are separate and distinct from the fedoraproject.org domain. * Improve the wiki documentation for schedule, freezes, critical path, and related info to make it dead simple for any developer (or heck, anyone) to figure out what is permissible at any point in the cycle. This should help eliminate guesswork, late code drops, and misunderstandings that can negatively affect the community. Not only that, but it means that we can more effectively create more robust QA and rel-eng communities because there's a lower barrier to learning what sometimes is institutional knowledge. > This is a great opportunity for each board member to state their > position so that the community can see where we each stand on these > issues. -- 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 mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 01:13:29 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:13:29 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > In particular this very early sentence should be important in thinking > about our target audience: "[A] tiny minority of users usually > accounts for a disproportionately large amount of the content and > other system activity." Note that the model shown in this article > is supported by our experience of bringing users into the community to > participate, first in limited ways and then (in some cases) more > protracted and substantial ones. > I read that sentence to mean the vocal minority. Not the nonvocal minority. > This is why I feel so strongly that we should not be assuming that the > people we see every day in our roles in the Fedora community, > participating and contributing in constructive ways, are de facto > representative of our only target audience. Do we want those people > involved? Almost invariably the answer is "yes." But there are many > more people we reach, and more that we want to be reaching, to > encourage an appreciation for sustainable software freedom, on the > terms we set out in our mission and core values: > Can you give some more detailed examples here? You've defined the people we see day to day but then went on to describe the people we don't see day to day. Those two groups combined are everyone :) -Mike From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 02:46:10 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:46:10 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:59:52AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, John Poelstra wrote: > >> >> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html >> >> At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. Here I >> go :) >> >> 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things forward >> and own these issues. Are there any board members that disagree? Speak now >> or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) >> > >Agreed. > >> 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's agenda >> since January 2009. For some of us, since we joined in July 2009. I'm >> proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of FUDCon." This means that >> by the time we leave FUDCon the first part of December 2009, this issue will >> be officially closed and off our agenda until there is a reason to revisit it >> and we can start 2010 with a clean slate. Are there any board members who >> would not be able to commit to this goal? >> > >Committed. I'd also like to state that I'm willing to admit that I'm in >the minority in my thinking on this subject and will, of course, respect >and honor the final outcome even if it does not align with my personal >beliefs. I think you deserve some great credit for being the first to post. It's much easier to comment and critique someone else's thoughts, so kudos to you for putting this out there. >> (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe narrow the >> definition to "default spin")--without a clear target audience for our product >> there is a lack of clarity around when we are "done." It also makes it >> difficult to make decisions about release quality and release composition. >> > >Experienced users and people that wish to aid in leading our industry >through contribution, experimentation and science. (inventors, >tinkerers, hackers) Not artists, designers, writers? I think your first sentence was enough and adding examples actually detracted from where you were headed. >> (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distirbution to look >> like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What should >> those be? >> > >1) An easy automated way to provide tests and the answers to those tests. >IE: QA, targeted metric for some given configuration. I agree with this one. >2) More ISVs and start-ups have packages in the distribution. > >3) More Architectures. "Does Fedora run on $TOASTER?" Yes. These seem odd to me. I'll get to why in just a bit. >4) A better reputation as a place to bring new ideas to be tested and >presented as well as a better acceptance that failure of a new idea is not >a bad thing. I also like this one. >5) By F15 I'd like to see a killer virtualization management system in >Fedora. What we have now is a lot of disparate tools. All of which are >getting better, none of which are on the level with the likes of vmware. OK, confused. 2, 3, and 5 seem to have nothing to do with Fedora itself. Additionally, 5 here seems to be based on the assumption that the Fedora project is a development organization or that we control development resources that we can direct. I don't think either is true. I think Fedora is a _showcase_ for development that happens elsewhere. Now, I'm well aware of the fact that Red Hat (and other companies) pay people to work "on Fedora". However I think the actual development is done in the upstream projects and Fedora just happens to be the test/delivery vehicle for that work. The Fedora project also doesn't dictate what those developers do. We do have some very Fedora specific projects, but I don't find that the norm. >> (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Fedora Project to look >> like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What should >> those be? >> > >1) Fedora is a laboratory where all the cool stuff happens. Fairly ambiguous. What I find cool is certainly not the direction the project is headed in at all. >2) Stronger ties to educational institutions for the purposes of using >Fedora in education (like POSSE) and also a place where academics can come >to communicate, present works, do demonstrations, etc. I think this is a pretty good goal to have in that it exposes younger crowds to Fedora. >3) A place where businesses and employees can come to work and collaborate >towards common goals. Many businesses have started using FOSS, Fedora >should lead them in how to take a step further and become a FOSS business. >Also putting together better documentation on how and why employees are >better employees when they work with FOSS projects. And what about people that do FOSS in their spare time? I don't mean to harp on the same issues, but in some of our conversations I can't help but come away with the impression that you are approaching Fedora as a business product that is to be run like a business unit. >> (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed by the >> release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a better product >> or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What should those things be? >> > >1) QA. I list this first because not only does it obviously need to get >better but it seems obvious it will get better. The QA team has lots of >neat things coming down the pipe. > >2) Better communication around how rawhide works. Both in terms of best >practices in making changes to it and in communicating when updates are >safe. (probably relates to 1, but can't entirely rely on that) > >3) Related to 2) I'd like to see a way for our rawhide developers to have >their own rawhide branches. Similar to how there are different kernel >trees. This isn't so they can have their own distro. But so they can >more easily put massive changes in place to be tested for some small >period of time before it is merged with "Jesse's tree" :) > >4) Better messaging systems for contributors and end users. Just in >general a better experience in letting our users know what's going on in >Fedora (news), what features are coming down the pipe (feature update vs >just a normal update), etc. > >5) Additional ways for people to contribute to via the Fedora Project that >are not the distribution itself. I liked most of these. 5 seems a bit ambiguous, but that might not be bad if you are looking for contributions that we aren't encouraging today. josh From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 03:14:51 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:14:51 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 07:27:34PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:11:41PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: >> (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe >> narrow the definition to "default spin")--without a clear target >> audience for our product there is a lack of clarity around when we >> are "done." It also makes it difficult to make decisions about >> release quality and release composition. > >We should concentrate on the default offering as our point of decision >making for purposes of this discussion. One of the main purposes of >custom spins is to enable different groups and teams to alter that >target audience. For instance, the FEL spin is going to have a very >different target audience from the default offering. > >As I pointed out in our last meeting, there is a useful discussion of >community composition and how it affects perceptions here: > >http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html I think this article points out some interesting facts, however I'm not entirely convinced it's a great example of how we want to approach this topic. Certainly some of it makes sense, and some of the examples you have below are good items to address (abrt, etc). >In particular this very early sentence should be important in thinking >about our target audience: "[A] tiny minority of users usually >accounts for a disproportionately large amount of the content and >other system activity." Note that the model shown in this article >is supported by our experience of bringing users into the community to >participate, first in limited ways and then (in some cases) more >protracted and substantial ones. > >This is why I feel so strongly that we should not be assuming that the >people we see every day in our roles in the Fedora community, >participating and contributing in constructive ways, are de facto >representative of our only target audience. Do we want those people >involved? Almost invariably the answer is "yes." But there are many >more people we reach, and more that we want to be reaching, to >encourage an appreciation for sustainable software freedom, on the >terms we set out in our mission and core values: > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations > >I think it's a good idea for this discussion to concentrate not on how >we aren't meeting this goal at present, but rather on where we want to >be in the future. Here is the kind of lowest common denominator user >for whom I would like Fedora to be the first choice of an operating >system in the next two years. > >In terms of characteristics or approach, this person: > >* ...is switching from $OTHER_OS to free software after hearing or > reading about it, or seeing it first hand. >* ...expects things to "just work" as much as possible, and can > sometimes be impatient as a result. I think it's important to note that even our current developers can and do have that characteristic. People generally want things to work, regardless of how much experience they have. >* ...doesn't want to go back to $OTHER_OS, and is therefore willing to > fiddle occasionally -- on the order of 10-15 minutes or less per > month -- to avoid it. >* ...accepts that software freedom has certain limitations, but wants > to minimize (and if possible eliminate) any difference in > capabilities vs. $OTHER_OS. >* ...won't pay for software. >* ...will contribute in the form of a bug report or helping others, if > it's easy to do so with a few mouse clicks, but won't fill out long > Web forms or do more than a sentence or so of typing. This seems to conflict with the 'less than 10-15' minutes or less per month goal you have above. Good bug reports (ideally abrt assisted) will still take at least 10 min to file. Actual useful bug particpation is much more than that. >* ...is interested in sustainable practices in general, but is not > necessarily fanatic -- recycles packaging and goods, thinks "buying > local" is worthwhile, volunteers at something a few times a year. Why is that important to the Fedora project or distro? >Clearly this person is not a developer, but including this person in >our target audience does not disadvantage developers as end-users of >the distribution. Focusing on this person's needs might mean that we >the Fedora community might have to come up with better strategies for >delivering software, or re-examine our release processes, or develop >some new ways of creating the distribution/tree so that we can allow >developers to maintain a high pace where appropriate, yet not have >that boomerang on all users. > >> (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distirbution >> to look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. >> What should those be? > >The article goes on to show how this inequality skews perceptions of >our actual users, and then goes on to point out some ways to overcome >the inequities. One of the suggestions is to "make participation a The article assumes that you view this inequity as a problem that needs fixing. In our case, is it really? I have no problems with having a large non-vocal user base. Nor do I have problems targeting some people outside of our primary contributor audience. However at the end of the day, Fedora is shaped by the people that are putting forth the effort to actually make something. >side effect." This is something that we are still striving to do in >the software we provide. We've made some advances in areas like ABRT, >SELinux, and others. But, as I'm sure their worthy developers would >agree, even those need refinement so that we are better leveraging our >large user base into occasional participation, and giving them a clear >path to increase that engagement with the Fedora Project. > >Looking back at the example profile above, this person may not be >fanatical about software freedom when trying Fedora *for the first >time*. But by providing an improved experience for that person, we >smooth the way for then taking on the specific goal of education in >the context of making participation a side effect of using Fedora. I won't disagree that extending pariticpation as a side effect is something we can and possibly should do. However, I do not feel that it is something we need to make a _primary_ focus. Why? Mostly because while I understand the article's points about increasing paticipation, I want that participation to be a concious choice on the users part. I want our contributors to WANT to contribute. I want them to be annoyed at something and motivated enough to do something about it. Or to have them have a great direction they want to take Fedora in and care enough to actually try and see it through. We have long said that 'Fedora is a meritocracy', and I still think that is something we want to strive for. >Right now we provide little to a Fedora user out of the box, in the >way of educating them where Fedora comes from, the enormous size of >our community of contribution, and how we encourage sustainable >software freedom. We can and should do better, especially with our >unique positioning in terms of innovation and leadership. We can also Agreed. For that we need actual content, and the distro itself is not the vehicle for that. We need people making videos, writing documentation, helping users on IRC or lists, etc. However, this is outside of the distribution and more on the project. >I've heard a bit of preliminary rumbling about DSCM-like Rawhides -- a >way for developers to have trees that move at their pace, and are >possibly quite broken from time to time in ways that differ from each >other. If we were able to develop such a scenario, why not also >provide the flipside of this idea -- make the One True Rawhide the >place where we take in changes that don't break the world, while >they're cobbled on in the other trees? Whether this is an extension >of the "KoPeR" idea or something entirely difficult, it merits serious >consideration. I very much like the aspect of the more stable rawhide here. >> (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Project to >> look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. >> What should those be? > >By Fedora 16 (i.e. two years out): > >* Build a more robust presence and community in Africa, China, and > Japan. Also Russia. I hear we have quite an active community in Brazil and India, so perhaps we could look at what our Ambassadors and contributors have done in those localities. >* Complete package maintenance interface in one site (i.e. less or no > shuttling between SCM, Koji, and Bodhi). Perhaps s/site/site and tool? I know that as a developer, if I had to go to a website for everything I did in order to contribute I wouldn't be overly thrilled. (Also, it's worth pointing out that openSUSE already accomplishes this with their build service. It is build, SCM, etc all rolled into one. And they have a command line tool.) >* Using the Fedora Community Portal to connect new FAS members > immediately with short-term tasks, and live mentors through a > Web-based communication interface. Devote several FADs and FUDCon > hackfests to coding the pieces needed as part of a planned project. Again with the Web-based focus. Wouldn't this be potentially alienating and annoying to a not small subset of the 1% of our development community that is making the distro today? >> (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed >> by the release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a >> better product or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What >> should those things be? > >I'll just add these to the mix: > >* A coordinated effort between Alpha and Beta (or even post-Beta) to > file and fix more bugs as a community effort, perhaps in the form of > a focused week of effort across the Fedora community. Community > Architecture support for bug parties, say $50-75/group to pay for > hacker snacks. > >* A central 'www.fedoracommunity.org' website that functions as a > directory of other *.fedoracommunity.org domains -- the ones run by > our community members that are separate and distinct from the > fedoraproject.org domain. > >* Improve the wiki documentation for schedule, freezes, critical path, > and related info to make it dead simple for any developer (or heck, > anyone) to figure out what is permissible at any point in the > cycle. This should help eliminate guesswork, late code drops, and > misunderstandings that can negatively affect the community. Not > only that, but it means that we can more effectively create more > robust QA and rel-eng communities because there's a lower barrier to > learning what sometimes is institutional knowledge. These all seem like really good ideas. josh From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 03:18:48 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:18:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Not artists, designers, writers? I think your first sentence was enough and > adding examples actually detracted from where you were headed. > Only if they're also technical in nature. The project itself attracts these types because we need them and it's an excellent place for their works. We even have people on the Infrastructure Team that use windows while contributing. I was specifically talking about the distribution. > > I also like this one. > > >5) By F15 I'd like to see a killer virtualization management system in > >Fedora. What we have now is a lot of disparate tools. All of which are > >getting better, none of which are on the level with the likes of vmware. > > OK, confused. 2, 3, and 5 seem to have nothing to do with Fedora itself. > Additionally, 5 here seems to be based on the assumption that the Fedora > project is a development organization or that we control development > resources that we can direct. I don't think either is true. I think Fedora > is a _showcase_ for development that happens elsewhere. > yet 2, 3, and 5 have all been hackfests or discussion points at the last two fudcons I've attended. Also, that's kind of my point. They don't have much to do with Fedora at the moment. But I'd like to see us do them. Just like NM typically gets its changes here first. We can through resources and help at upstream projects more for even better relationships with upstream. This is just doing more of what we are already good at. > Now, I'm well aware of the fact that Red Hat (and other companies) pay > people to work "on Fedora". However I think the actual development is done > in the upstream projects and Fedora just happens to be the test/delivery > vehicle for that work. The Fedora project also doesn't dictate what those > developers do. > Something I want to see changed. I'd like to have facilities to do this more in Fedora. We're starting to have this stuff like we didn't before. Our work with ovirt is a prime example of this. > > >3) A place where businesses and employees can come to work and collaborate > >towards common goals. Many businesses have started using FOSS, Fedora > >should lead them in how to take a step further and become a FOSS business. > >Also putting together better documentation on how and why employees are > >better employees when they work with FOSS projects. > > And what about people that do FOSS in their spare time? > > I don't mean to harp on the same issues, but in some of our conversations I > can't help but come away with the impression that you are approaching Fedora > as a business product that is to be run like a business unit. > We've already got that. No need to set goals we've already met. -Mike From chitlesh.goorah at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 08:29:45 2009 From: chitlesh.goorah at gmail.com (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:29:45 +0200 Subject: get.fedoraproject.org redesign mockups In-Reply-To: <20091007134751.GL28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACA6759.9040407@fedoraproject.org> <4ACC176C.1080505@redhat.com> <20091007133143.GJ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091007134751.GL28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <50baabb30910080129n161e28f4kc35248f2f34cc268@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Sorry to reply to myself, but: > >> $ su -c 'yum groupinstall "Web Server"' >> $ su -c 'yum install git gettext python-genshi babel' >> $ git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/fedora-web.git ? ?# ~37 MB > > Fixing next line: > > ?$ cd fedora-web/spins.fedoraproject.org ? ? ? ?# This is what's done > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? so far Hello, I've trying the current git. I have one comment about the header. The header is too HUGE. (about 30% of the page) See Red Box in this screenshot http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/spinwebsite.png This prevents me from adding the Fedora Electronic Lab logo on the page since together it will take about 50% of the page. I would prefer to use those page to demonstrate why the spin is great. http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/FEL/images/fedoraelectroniclab-logo.png Can you compress the contents of red box into the yellow box ? Also is it possible to replace the gradient blue stuffs into something similar to the footer ? Chitlesh From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 10:48:32 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 06:48:32 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:18:48PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >5) By F15 I'd like to see a killer virtualization management system in >> >Fedora. What we have now is a lot of disparate tools. All of which are >> >getting better, none of which are on the level with the likes of vmware. >> >> OK, confused. 2, 3, and 5 seem to have nothing to do with Fedora itself. >> Additionally, 5 here seems to be based on the assumption that the Fedora >> project is a development organization or that we control development >> resources that we can direct. I don't think either is true. I think Fedora >> is a _showcase_ for development that happens elsewhere. >> > >yet 2, 3, and 5 have all been hackfests or discussion points at the last >two fudcons I've attended. Also, that's kind of my point. They don't >have much to do with Fedora at the moment. But I'd like to see us do >them. Just like NM typically gets its changes here first. We can through >resources and help at upstream projects more for even better relationships >with upstream. This is just doing more of what we are already good at. NM is showcased here first. I'm pretty sure all the NM changes are still going into upstream before they actually show up in a Fedora RPM. >> Now, I'm well aware of the fact that Red Hat (and other companies) pay >> people to work "on Fedora". However I think the actual development is done >> in the upstream projects and Fedora just happens to be the test/delivery >> vehicle for that work. The Fedora project also doesn't dictate what those >> developers do. >> > >Something I want to see changed. I'd like to have facilities to do this >more in Fedora. We're starting to have this stuff like we didn't before. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by any of that. What exactly do you want to see changed? What facilities would you like to have? What are we starting to have more of? >Our work with ovirt is a prime example of this. I don't know anything about this so I can't comment. >> >3) A place where businesses and employees can come to work and collaborate >> >towards common goals. Many businesses have started using FOSS, Fedora >> >should lead them in how to take a step further and become a FOSS business. >> >Also putting together better documentation on how and why employees are >> >better employees when they work with FOSS projects. >> >> And what about people that do FOSS in their spare time? >> >> I don't mean to harp on the same issues, but in some of our conversations I >> can't help but come away with the impression that you are approaching Fedora >> as a business product that is to be run like a business unit. >> > >We've already got that. No need to set goals we've already met. I don't think it's met. I think it's perhaps one of the very reasons we are having this discussion to begin with. josh From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 12:59:01 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:59:01 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091008125901.GG30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:11:41PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things > forward and own these issues. Are there any board members that > disagree? Speak now or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) I think it's our responsibility to (re)evaluate these issues, yes. > 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's > agenda since January 2009. For some of us, since we joined in July > 2009. I'm proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of FUDCon." > This means that by the time we leave FUDCon the first part of December > 2009, this issue will be officially closed and off our agenda until > there is a reason to revisit it and we can start 2010 with a clean > slate. Are there any board members who would not be able to commit to > this goal? I think we can try. I also think 'resolve' is perhaps the wrong word. > (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe > narrow the definition to "default spin")--without a clear target > audience for our product there is a lack of clarity around when we are > "done." It also makes it difficult to make decisions about release > quality and release composition. We're never going to be "done", so shooting for clarity on how to be done seems slightly the wrong angle. I agree with Paul that for this question we should focus on the type of user we want to target with the default spin. It seems we have basically boiled this down to two sets of users. The first is 'newbie', and the second is 'experienced developer'. (If there are others that I'm missing, chime in). I'll define 'newbie' here as: - Someone that is moving from $OTHER_{OS,DISTRO} and is looking for something a bit more exciting and a bit less restrictive. - They likely don't have programming skills, nor necessarily want to become developers. - They generally want things to work out of the box, but they don't mind seeking help or helping developers debug a problem. - They have a general knowledge of computers, have installed software in some manner before, are comfortable with basic computer terms like RAM, CPU, gigabyte, etc. Generally, not Aunt Tilly but not necessarily someone that is in an undergrad CS program either. Defining 'experienced user' is a bit easier, and I haven't seen any debate on the usage of that term so I'll avoid spelling it out. If there is someone that isn't clear on what I mean, just ask. With that in mind, I think it's interesting to note that there is a lot of overlap between those two if you target the less experienced user. E.g. both classes generally want things just to work. I also think that targetting the newbie does increase your possible contributor base as we have said before. Whether they turn into uber-contributors or not doesn't really matter as long as they find using the Fedora distro to be generally useful and _want_ to be part of the project. > (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distirbution to > look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What > should those be? As I said in the public IRC meeting, I really stink at this sort of thing. It's not that I can't lay out long term goals, it's just that things move and change entirely too fast to lay out a 2 year plan. I think F15/F16 should be an evolution of what we have today. Continuing to showcase the latest stable FOSS and trying to provide a great experience out of the box. I believe we need to get a consistent methodolgy in place for how we treat released versions of the distro in terms of updates, bug fixing, etc. Consistency across the distro is going to help users gauge what to expect. I think we need to pick a spin and focus primary development on that. To a large degree, we have started down this path already with the webpage redesigns, the reaffirmation that the desktop spin is our default, etc. This is not to say that there can't be other spins, or that we don't want Fedora to allow people to produce derivations. However I do feel that treating them all as equals and using terms like 'first among equals' is a disservice to the distro overall. A tiered approach provides clarity. > (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Fedora Project to > look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What > should those be? I'll try to avoid repeating items that others have already said and I agree with (like expanded participation, etc). I would like to see our development community participating in our processes as a whole. I would like to see more education efforts for users (extending the Fedora Classroom ideas, writing content on how to do things, etc.) I would like to see less aversion to looking at other distros and reusing/ contributing to things they have started that are beneficial to Fedora. > (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed by > the release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a better > product or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What should those > things be? QA. Fortunately, we have made good progress on the rawhide front already. I'd like to see (and help with) more progress on QA of released versions and updates. A higher bar for Features. We have a hugenormous list of Features and it's starting to get a bit fuzzy as to what that means and how a new user could possibly even experience some of those. An actual secondary architecture release. We've had 'almost' releases since F8. I don't care which arch it is, but if we don't have a secondary arch that actually does a release I think it's time that we as a project just move on and stop worrying about it. (Or maybe we're already at that point and I'm the only one worrying) A clear process around the creation of the distribution. I think rel-eng is making strides towards this already, and trying to improve the experience for contributors with no frozen rawhide and auto-qa. I'd like to see us support that and invest in it because it will have a wide benefit. Easy one: auto-sign builds. Represent signed packages exactly as they are today: Fedora built this. That's it. Signing doesn't imply it's been tested or QA'd or that it is somehow a known quantity. It simply means the package as built by Fedora. josh From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 13:11:18 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:11:18 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:18:48PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > >On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> >5) By F15 I'd like to see a killer virtualization management system in > >> >Fedora. What we have now is a lot of disparate tools. All of which are > >> >getting better, none of which are on the level with the likes of vmware. > >> > >> OK, confused. 2, 3, and 5 seem to have nothing to do with Fedora itself. > >> Additionally, 5 here seems to be based on the assumption that the Fedora > >> project is a development organization or that we control development > >> resources that we can direct. I don't think either is true. I think Fedora > >> is a _showcase_ for development that happens elsewhere. > >> > > > >yet 2, 3, and 5 have all been hackfests or discussion points at the last > >two fudcons I've attended. Also, that's kind of my point. They don't > >have much to do with Fedora at the moment. But I'd like to see us do > >them. Just like NM typically gets its changes here first. We can through > >resources and help at upstream projects more for even better relationships > >with upstream. This is just doing more of what we are already good at. > > NM is showcased here first. I'm pretty sure all the NM changes are still > going into upstream before they actually show up in a Fedora RPM. > But that's not to say it's not tightly coupled with Fedora. When there's a NM problem, people go in #fedora-devel and ping Dan Williams. When there's a problem with yum they do the same thing to Seth. There are several other examples. It's because Fedora is where a great deal of this type of development is happening. This extremely low barrier to upstream is what I'm talking about. Fedorahosted makes this even easier. > >> Now, I'm well aware of the fact that Red Hat (and other companies) pay > >> people to work "on Fedora". However I think the actual development is done > >> in the upstream projects and Fedora just happens to be the test/delivery > >> vehicle for that work. The Fedora project also doesn't dictate what those > >> developers do. > >> > > > >Something I want to see changed. I'd like to have facilities to do this > >more in Fedora. We're starting to have this stuff like we didn't before. > > I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by any of that. What exactly do > you want to see changed? What facilities would you like to have? What are > we starting to have more of? > Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead) Looking for additional resources to do X or Y. I'd like to start providing that. This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do reporting back for various information. This is implementation though. All of which is well below the discussion we're having. -Mike From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 13:21:12 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:21:12 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20091008132112.GH30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 08:11:18AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:18:48PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >> >On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> >5) By F15 I'd like to see a killer virtualization management system in >> >> >Fedora. What we have now is a lot of disparate tools. All of which are >> >> >getting better, none of which are on the level with the likes of vmware. >> >> >> >> OK, confused. 2, 3, and 5 seem to have nothing to do with Fedora itself. >> >> Additionally, 5 here seems to be based on the assumption that the Fedora >> >> project is a development organization or that we control development >> >> resources that we can direct. I don't think either is true. I think Fedora >> >> is a _showcase_ for development that happens elsewhere. >> >> >> > >> >yet 2, 3, and 5 have all been hackfests or discussion points at the last >> >two fudcons I've attended. Also, that's kind of my point. They don't >> >have much to do with Fedora at the moment. But I'd like to see us do >> >them. Just like NM typically gets its changes here first. We can through >> >resources and help at upstream projects more for even better relationships >> >with upstream. This is just doing more of what we are already good at. >> >> NM is showcased here first. I'm pretty sure all the NM changes are still >> going into upstream before they actually show up in a Fedora RPM. >> > >But that's not to say it's not tightly coupled with Fedora. When there's >a NM problem, people go in #fedora-devel and ping Dan Williams. When >there's a problem with yum they do the same thing to Seth. There are >several other examples. It's because Fedora is where a great deal of this >type of development is happening. This extremely low barrier to upstream >is what I'm talking about. Fedorahosted makes this even easier. I'll concede that point. >> >> Now, I'm well aware of the fact that Red Hat (and other companies) pay >> >> people to work "on Fedora". However I think the actual development is done >> >> in the upstream projects and Fedora just happens to be the test/delivery >> >> vehicle for that work. The Fedora project also doesn't dictate what those >> >> developers do. >> >> >> > >> >Something I want to see changed. I'd like to have facilities to do this >> >more in Fedora. We're starting to have this stuff like we didn't before. >> >> I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by any of that. What exactly do >> you want to see changed? What facilities would you like to have? What are >> we starting to have more of? >> > >Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead) >Looking for additional resources to do X or Y. I'd like to start >providing that. This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as >well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do >reporting back for various information. I see. I was more focusing on the 'we can't dictate what developers do' part, while you were focusing on making it easier for upstream to do what they want. That's fine. josh From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 8 13:26:57 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:26:57 -0400 Subject: get.fedoraproject.org redesign mockups In-Reply-To: <50baabb30910080129n161e28f4kc35248f2f34cc268@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACA6759.9040407@fedoraproject.org> <4ACC176C.1080505@redhat.com> <20091007133143.GJ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091007134751.GL28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <50baabb30910080129n161e28f4kc35248f2f34cc268@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ACDE8A1.8000007@linuxgrrl.com> Hi Chitlesh, On 10/08/2009 04:29 AM, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote: > I have one comment about the header. The header is too HUGE. (about > 30% of the page) > See Red Box in this screenshot > http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/spinwebsite.png > > This prevents me from adding the Fedora Electronic Lab logo on the > page since together it will take about 50% of the page. I would prefer > to use those page to demonstrate why the spin is great. > http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/FEL/images/fedoraelectroniclab-logo.png > > Can you compress the contents of red box into the yellow box ? Also is > it possible to replace the gradient blue stuffs into something similar > to the footer ? The redbox is supposed to be space for your logo. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/File:Spin-details-generic.png ~m From inode0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 14:40:47 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:40:47 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead) > Looking for additional resources to do X or Y. ?I'd like to start > providing that. ?This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as > well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do > reporting back for various information. > > This is implementation though. ?All of which is well below the discussion > we're having. This is a perfect of example of a different kind of leadership. Someone sees a problem, decides the problem is worth solving, figures out who wants to solve it, provides them with the wherewithal to make it happen. I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. The default spin keeps coming up so I guess either the board isn't happy with how that is working now or thinks additional guidance is needed by those creating it currently? To help alleviate new user/contributor confusion about what Fedora is? Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? Are there structural problems within the project that this would help? I know I probably sound like I'm set against this business, I really just don't see so much of the upside to it as I think you do and I'd like to really understand what its purpose is intended to be. Being honest, I am concerned it could be used to broaden the board's involvement in areas of the project where delegation of responsibility already seems to exist. John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 14:56:01 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:56:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead) > > Looking for additional resources to do X or Y. ?I'd like to start > > providing that. ?This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as > > well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do > > reporting back for various information. > > > > This is implementation though. ?All of which is well below the discussion > > we're having. > > This is a perfect of example of a different kind of leadership. > Someone sees a problem, decides the problem is worth solving, figures > out who wants to solve it, provides them with the wherewithal to make > it happen. > > I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are > made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. The default > spin keeps coming up so I guess either the board isn't happy with how > that is working now or thinks additional guidance is needed by those > creating it currently? To help alleviate new user/contributor > confusion about what Fedora is? > > Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out > technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? Are > there structural problems within the project that this would help? > > I know I probably sound like I'm set against this business, I really > just don't see so much of the upside to it as I think you do and I'd > like to really understand what its purpose is intended to be. > > Being honest, I am concerned it could be used to broaden the board's > involvement in areas of the project where delegation of responsibility > already seems to exist. > Honestly the discussion we're having on F-A-B right now is a major distraction to the who is fedora for topic of which is my primary concern. There doesn't seem to be any consensus among the Board, most have remained quiet until a scheduled meeting so my hopes of any actual change are quickly vanishing. Which is totally fine. The problem I'm trying to solve is arguments and future planning being done by those who shout the loudest or longest. Lots of different engineers pulling Fedora in different directions instead of having us all work towards one direction. I seem to be in an incredible minority in thinking this. -Mike From inode0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 15:23:30 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:23:30 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Honestly the discussion we're having on F-A-B right now is a major > distraction to the who is fedora for topic of which is my primary concern. > There doesn't seem to be any consensus among the Board, most have remained > quiet until a scheduled meeting so my hopes of any actual change are > quickly vanishing. ?Which is totally fine. ?The problem I'm trying to > solve is arguments and future planning being done by those who shout the > loudest or longest. ?Lots of different engineers pulling Fedora in > different directions instead of having us all work towards one direction. > I seem to be in an incredible minority in thinking this. Wow, talk about disconnect. From the glimpse I get into the board's business I thought the "What is Fedora?" initiative had a lot of traction and was basically a done deal aside from sorting out the details. And I thought all this stuff being discussed here was part of that sorting out process. Thanks for succinctly restating the point you had in mind though. John From jeff at ocjtech.us Thu Oct 8 15:29:26 2009 From: jeff at ocjtech.us (Jeffrey Ollie) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:29:26 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 wrote: > > I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are > made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. Unless a clear mission and purpose is defined, Fedora will just kind of float along pushed around by whatever currents are strongest at the moment. Maybe that sort of philosophy suits you, but I'd rather have an idea of where we're headed. > Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out > technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? Yes. Fedora has limited resources. That means that someone needs to prioritize the use of those resources. As a corollary to that it may mean that some projects/ideas may be denied resources. > Are there structural problems within the project that this would help? Fedora can't be everything to everyone, and if anyone in the project thinks we can, I would call that a structural problem. > Being honest, I am concerned it could be used to broaden the board's > involvement in areas of the project where delegation of responsibility > already seems to exist. Technically, it's the board that delegated the responsibility in the first place. If they feel it's best to un-delegate the responsibility that's up to them. -- Jeff Ollie From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 15:33:32 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:33:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 wrote: >> >> I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are >> made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. > > Unless a clear mission and purpose is defined, Fedora will just kind > of float along pushed around by whatever currents are strongest at the > moment. Maybe that sort of philosophy suits you, but I'd rather have > an idea of where we're headed. > >> Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out >> technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? > > Yes. Fedora has limited resources. That means that someone needs to > prioritize the use of those resources. As a corollary to that it may > mean that some projects/ideas may be denied resources. > to be fair the board has no power to allocate resources. The board has NO control over, afaict, ANY of the development teams: kernel, desktop, virtualization. Not sure what difference any of this discussion will make until that weird split of power vs responsibility is resolved. -sv From jeff at ocjtech.us Thu Oct 8 15:55:56 2009 From: jeff at ocjtech.us (Jeffrey Ollie) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:55:56 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <935ead450910080855u343b6da6of081918567add4c2@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 wrote: >>> >>> Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out >>> technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? >> >> Yes. ?Fedora has limited resources. That means that someone needs to >> prioritize the use of those resources. ?As a corollary to that it may >> mean that some projects/ideas may be denied resources. > > to be fair the board has no power to allocate resources. The board has NO > control over, afaict, ANY of the development teams: kernel, desktop, > virtualization. > > Not sure what difference any of this discussion will make until that weird > split of power vs responsibility is resolved. Hmm true. When the project is composed of mostly volunteers, no one can really allocate manpower resources like you could in a business. But what about the other resources available to the Fedora Project, like the servers that run the infrastructure and the money given to the project by Red Hat? Aren't those under the ultimate control of the board? If a developer or other project member starts going off in a direction that the board feels is detrimental to the project can't they deny him/her access to those resources? Hopefully controlling developers though such a negative method is never necessary. Hopefully the board would be able to persuade developers that the board's vision is the correct one and would then work together with everyone else to accomplish that vision. Of course, this presupposes that the board HAS a vision. -- Jeff Ollie From inode0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 15:58:59 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:58:59 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 wrote: >> >> I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are >> made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. > > Unless a clear mission and purpose is defined, Fedora will just kind > of float along pushed around by whatever currents are strongest at the > moment. ?Maybe that sort of philosophy suits you, but I'd rather have > an idea of where we're headed. The currents that push the strongest, those the contributors want to spend their time on, are the currents we will ultimately float along with. We can't force people to work on something they aren't interested in working on and have the sort of community we have today. There is a strong hint in all of this that some people prefer a traditional hierarchical management structure to this project. Fundamentally that is what fills me with the trepidation I mentioned in my very first post on this thread. >> Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out >> technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? > > Yes. ?Fedora has limited resources. That means that someone needs to > prioritize the use of those resources. ?As a corollary to that it may > mean that some projects/ideas may be denied resources. I thought I was asking a rhetorical question there. And I think the answer is no. >> Are there structural problems within the project that this would help? > > Fedora can't be everything to everyone, and if anyone in the project > thinks we can, I would call that a structural problem. I think it is a problem if we exclude contributors who have a vision that nine board members don't understand yet. Let them do their work, make their case, and prove their point. We have mechanisms now for determining winners and losers among competing technologies. >> Being honest, I am concerned it could be used to broaden the board's >> involvement in areas of the project where delegation of responsibility >> already seems to exist. > > Technically, it's the board that delegated the responsibility in the > first place. ?If they feel it's best to un-delegate the responsibility > that's up to them. Another expression of precisely what is scaring me in this conversation. John From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 15:59:14 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:59:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <935ead450910080855u343b6da6of081918567add4c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <935ead450910080855u343b6da6of081918567add4c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > Hmm true. When the project is composed of mostly volunteers, no one > can really allocate manpower resources like you could in a business. > But what about the other resources available to the Fedora Project, > like the servers that run the infrastructure and the money given to > the project by Red Hat? Aren't those under the ultimate control of > the board? If a developer or other project member starts going off in > a direction that the board feels is detrimental to the project can't > they deny him/her access to those resources? > > Hopefully controlling developers though such a negative method is > never necessary. Hopefully the board would be able to persuade > developers that the board's vision is the correct one and would then > work together with everyone else to accomplish that vision. > the developers work for their manager. Ie: I work for Tom. So Does Mike and a lot of folks on the fedora team. But the desktop team developers work for Jonathan. So a different set of people in charge. The board has no hiearchical control over either Tom or Jonathan so directing them to direct their people to do something or to NOT do something is not within the purview of the board as I understand it. -sv ps: all of this is only in my understanding of the way the org-charts work. If someone else wants to correct me on this they are most likely right. From jeff at ocjtech.us Thu Oct 8 16:06:48 2009 From: jeff at ocjtech.us (Jeffrey Ollie) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:06:48 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <935ead450910080855u343b6da6of081918567add4c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <935ead450910080906w42adb28aw7f98ce0fe26cbb75@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >> Hmm true. ?When the project is composed of mostly volunteers, no one >> can really allocate manpower resources like you could in a business. >> [...] >> Hopefully the board would be able to persuade >> developers that the board's vision is the correct one and would then >> work together with everyone else to accomplish that vision. > > the developers work for their manager. Ie: I work for Tom. So Does Mike and > a lot of folks on the fedora team. But the desktop team developers work for > Jonathan. So a different set of people in charge. > > The board has no hiearchical control over either Tom or Jonathan so > directing them to direct their people to do something or to NOT do something > is not within the purview of the board as I understand it. Yes, that's true for the people that work for Red Hat. Just as it's true for the people that work for other companies (e.g. Matt Domsch who works for Dell). The fact that a few Red Hat employees are paid by Red Hat to work on Fedora shouldn't make a difference ultimately. It's the job of the Fedora Board to convince individual developers (or those developer's managers) that the board has a vision worth working on. -- Jeff Ollie From duffy at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 16:06:47 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:06:47 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <4ACE0E17.40402@fedoraproject.org> On 10/08/2009 10:40 AM, inode0 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: >> Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead) >> Looking for additional resources to do X or Y. I'd like to start >> providing that. This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as >> well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do >> reporting back for various information. > I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are > made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. The default > spin keeps coming up so I guess either the board isn't happy with how > that is working now or thinks additional guidance is needed by those > creating it currently? To help alleviate new user/contributor > confusion about what Fedora is? Knowing what Fedora (or just the default spin) is meant to be and who is it for is really essential for the design team to produce top-notch designs and artwork in a productive and efficient manner. E.g., the redesign work we've been doing on the fedoraproject.org website [1] at times has been pretty stressful because there are at least 2 main and oppositional views on what Fedora is and who is it for, and people from the different camps give (at times exceedingly harsh) feedback and criticism of the designs. The problem is, there is no way a design can satisfy one camp without seriously compromising the needs and goals of the others. As a designer, this places me in a very uncomfortable situation. The 2 views as I would summarize them are: - Fedora is a beautiful, usable desktop for everyone (or at least, we're getting there.) Pandas are okay! We're ready to push to the masses. - Fedora is a menagerie of equal spins for highly-technical folks and FOSS developers. Don't you dare insult our intelligence with pandas. Go back to Sesame street. Don't get me started on the amount of stress the lack of answers to the fundamental questions here have caused with respect to the Fedora artwork & theming. :) The main issue from a design perspective is that if no target is defined, then the target becomes 'everybody' - and I personally feel it's impossible to make a top-notch, beautiful design when trying to please everybody. You need the focus of a specific set of target users' context to be able to make the right decisions in the design process to come up with a good design. > I know I probably sound like I'm set against this business, I really > just don't see so much of the upside to it as I think you do and I'd > like to really understand what its purpose is intended to be. I hope the above explanation helps? :/ ~m [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009 From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 16:19:50 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:19:50 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <935ead450910080855u343b6da6of081918567add4c2@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <935ead450910080855u343b6da6of081918567add4c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091008161950.GI30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:55:56AM -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 wrote: >>>> >>>> Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out >>>> technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? >>> >>> Yes. ?Fedora has limited resources. That means that someone needs to >>> prioritize the use of those resources. ?As a corollary to that it may >>> mean that some projects/ideas may be denied resources. >> >> to be fair the board has no power to allocate resources. The board has NO >> control over, afaict, ANY of the development teams: kernel, desktop, >> virtualization. >> >> Not sure what difference any of this discussion will make until that weird >> split of power vs responsibility is resolved. > >Hmm true. When the project is composed of mostly volunteers, no one >can really allocate manpower resources like you could in a business. >But what about the other resources available to the Fedora Project, >like the servers that run the infrastructure and the money given to >the project by Red Hat? Aren't those under the ultimate control of >the board? If a developer or other project member starts going off in >a direction that the board feels is detrimental to the project can't >they deny him/her access to those resources? I'm struggling to come up with how a project member could go in a direction that was detrimental to Fedora in a non-obvious, non-malicous way. There's a difference between reacting to malice and what we're talking about I think. At the very least, we don't control upstream development of the packages we include in the distro for most cases. Influence, sure. But we have no recourse for locking an upstream developer out of something if they are developing in a manner the project doesn't think would benefit Fedora. >Hopefully controlling developers though such a negative method is >never necessary. Hopefully the board would be able to persuade >developers that the board's vision is the correct one and would then >work together with everyone else to accomplish that vision. About the only cases I can see the Board having actual control over are things like the contents of a Spin in terms of package set. And we don't want to discourage someone from making a derivative or alternative Spin, so I don't view it as any sort of control at all. josh From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 8 16:18:58 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:18:58 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ACE10F2.9070801@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/08/2009 11:58 AM, inode0 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >> Unless a clear mission and purpose is defined, Fedora will just kind >> of float along pushed around by whatever currents are strongest at the >> moment. Maybe that sort of philosophy suits you, but I'd rather have >> an idea of where we're headed. > > The currents that push the strongest, those the contributors want to > spend their time on, are the currents we will ultimately float along > with. We can't force people to work on something they aren't > interested in working on and have the sort of community we have today. > > There is a strong hint in all of this that some people prefer a > traditional hierarchical management structure to this project. > Fundamentally that is what fills me with the trepidation I mentioned > in my very first post on this thread. I don't think traditional hierarchical management is a foregone conclusion with strong vision statements. Having a strong vision of what we're trying to achieve can help us drum up more enthusiasm for the project attract more contributors. I kind of liken it to some of the experiences I've had dealing with product requirements in the past, for example along the lines of this little diatribe: http://blog.monochrome.co.uk/2009/02/if-architects-had-to-work-like-software-developers/ That blog post is how Fedora operates today. Who wants to work on a project like that? Yes, good things happen within this model when strong contributors stand up and take responsibility for their swath of the community. But it is confusing and disjointed, and at times highly frustrating and demotivating. There's no reason though that contributors can't get involved and move up the ranks of meritocracy, getting things done, underneath a shared vision of where Fedora is going. Rather than something like this guy's scattered rants about how he demands alumnium siding and the approval of his mother-in-law and his 1952 refrigerator, which is scary to face... we could maybe have a nice story of where we want Fedora to be in the future and just a little more direction. ~m From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 16:23:06 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:23:06 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ACE11EA.6060108@redhat.com> inode0 said the following on 10/08/2009 08:58 AM Pacific Time: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 wrote: >>> I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are >>> made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. >> Unless a clear mission and purpose is defined, Fedora will just kind >> of float along pushed around by whatever currents are strongest at the >> moment. Maybe that sort of philosophy suits you, but I'd rather have >> an idea of where we're headed. > > The currents that push the strongest, those the contributors want to > spend their time on, are the currents we will ultimately float along > with. We can't force people to work on something they aren't > interested in working on and have the sort of community we have today. > > There is a strong hint in all of this that some people prefer a > traditional hierarchical management structure to this project. > Fundamentally that is what fills me with the trepidation I mentioned > in my very first post on this thread. > >>> Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out >>> technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? >> Yes. Fedora has limited resources. That means that someone needs to >> prioritize the use of those resources. As a corollary to that it may >> mean that some projects/ideas may be denied resources. > > I thought I was asking a rhetorical question there. And I think the > answer is no. > >>> Are there structural problems within the project that this would help? >> Fedora can't be everything to everyone, and if anyone in the project >> thinks we can, I would call that a structural problem. > > I think it is a problem if we exclude contributors who have a vision > that nine board members don't understand yet. Let them do their work, > make their case, and prove their point. We have mechanisms now for > determining winners and losers among competing technologies. > This is too "all or nothing." There has been no discussion about excluding contributors who have a different vision than the board. Fedora provides a tremendous amount of flexibility and opportunity to do your own thing... including creating your own distro. Even if the core direction Fedora is at odds with some contributors, nobody is saying they can't do what they want to, within reasonable bounds of course. John From jeff at ocjtech.us Thu Oct 8 16:29:03 2009 From: jeff at ocjtech.us (Jeffrey Ollie) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:29:03 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <935ead450910080929l53d64892nd5e10ed3684cefa3@mail.gmail.com> Having read through the rest of the discussion and trolled though the wiki a bit, I think that the Fedora Project has an excellent statement of it's values[1] in the four foundations - it has an excellent mission statement[2]. What it's really lacking is a vision statement. Having a target audience for the Fedora Distribution will certainly be useful, but it's not much of a vision. If we let that be the vision of the Fedora Project we'll be following, not leading. I've been working on what I think might be a good vision statement, but I haven't quite got the right wording yet. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission -- Jeff Ollie From inode0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 16:29:48 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:29:48 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE11EA.6060108@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <4ACE11EA.6060108@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > inode0 said the following on 10/08/2009 08:58 AM Pacific Time: >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 wrote: >>>> Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out >>>> technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? >>> >>> Yes. ?Fedora has limited resources. That means that someone needs to >>> prioritize the use of those resources. ?As a corollary to that it may >>> mean that some projects/ideas may be denied resources. >> >> I thought I was asking a rhetorical question there. And I think the >> answer is no. >> >>>> Are there structural problems within the project that this would help? >>> >>> Fedora can't be everything to everyone, and if anyone in the project >>> thinks we can, I would call that a structural problem. >> >> I think it is a problem if we exclude contributors who have a vision >> that nine board members don't understand yet. Let them do their work, >> make their case, and prove their point. We have mechanisms now for >> determining winners and losers among competing technologies. >> > > This is too "all or nothing." ?There has been no discussion about excluding > contributors who have a different vision than the board. Fedora provides a > tremendous amount of flexibility and opportunity to do your own thing... > including creating your own distro. ?Even if the core direction Fedora is at > odds with some contributors, nobody is saying they can't do what they want > to, within reasonable bounds of course. Yes, there is discussion of exactly that in the text quoted above. Granted it was not made by a board member. At least that was how I interpreted the comments about prioritization and denial of resources to projects/ideas the board doesn't like. John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 16:39:49 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:39:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <4ACE11EA.6060108@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > > inode0 said the following on 10/08/2009 08:58 AM Pacific Time: > >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 wrote: > >>>> Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out > >>>> technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? > >>> > >>> Yes. ?Fedora has limited resources. That means that someone needs to > >>> prioritize the use of those resources. ?As a corollary to that it may > >>> mean that some projects/ideas may be denied resources. > >> > >> I thought I was asking a rhetorical question there. And I think the > >> answer is no. > >> > >>>> Are there structural problems within the project that this would help? > >>> > >>> Fedora can't be everything to everyone, and if anyone in the project > >>> thinks we can, I would call that a structural problem. > >> > >> I think it is a problem if we exclude contributors who have a vision > >> that nine board members don't understand yet. Let them do their work, > >> make their case, and prove their point. We have mechanisms now for > >> determining winners and losers among competing technologies. > >> > > > > This is too "all or nothing." ?There has been no discussion about excluding > > contributors who have a different vision than the board. Fedora provides a > > tremendous amount of flexibility and opportunity to do your own thing... > > including creating your own distro. ?Even if the core direction Fedora is at > > odds with some contributors, nobody is saying they can't do what they want > > to, within reasonable bounds of course. > > Yes, there is discussion of exactly that in the text quoted above. > Granted it was not made by a board member. At least that was how I > interpreted the comments about prioritization and denial of resources > to projects/ideas the board doesn't like. > There's a big difference between a board member saying "You're no longer welcome here" and a contributor realizing "These people don't have the same values I do". For example, no one kicked ESR out of Fedora. -Mike From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 16:42:51 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:42:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <4ACE11EA.6060108@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Mike McGrath wrote: >> Yes, there is discussion of exactly that in the text quoted above. >> Granted it was not made by a board member. At least that was how I >> interpreted the comments about prioritization and denial of resources >> to projects/ideas the board doesn't like. >> > > There's a big difference between a board member saying "You're no longer > welcome here" and a contributor realizing "These people don't have the > same values I do". For example, no one kicked ESR out of Fedora. > Not for a lack of trying. -sv From jeff at ocjtech.us Thu Oct 8 16:45:37 2009 From: jeff at ocjtech.us (Jeffrey Ollie) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:45:37 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091008161950.GI30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <935ead450910080855u343b6da6of081918567add4c2@mail.gmail.com> <20091008161950.GI30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <935ead450910080945ta2d5248j7180cf68f2cd6cff@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > I'm struggling to come up with how a project member could go in a direction > that was detrimental to Fedora in a non-obvious, non-malicous way. ?There's > a difference between reacting to malice and what we're talking about I think. I don't want to name names and point to specifics, because I don't want this discussion to degenerate into recrimination and finger pointing. But there have been a number of incidents where individual developers made changes (or were about to make changes) that would have been detrimental to the project, yet were not done maliciously. I don't think any of them ever got to the point where formal board action was required but the potential is there. In any case, the board should have the ability to restrict a developer that is being detrimental to the project (whatever their motivations) if that person can't be convinced through gentler means. > At the very least, we don't control upstream development of the packages > we include in the distro for most cases. ?Influence, sure. ?But we have no > recourse for locking an upstream developer out of something if they are > developing in a manner the project doesn't think would benefit Fedora. We have the same recourse as any downstream user - stop using the software or fork it and become own upstream. >>Hopefully controlling developers though such a negative method is >>never necessary. ?Hopefully the board would be able to persuade >>developers that the board's vision is the correct one and would then >>work together with everyone else to accomplish that vision. > > About the only cases I can see the Board having actual control over are > things like the contents of a Spin in terms of package set. ?And we don't > want to discourage someone from making a derivative or alternative Spin, > so I don't view it as any sort of control at all. In my view, the board has ultimate control over everything in the distribution. The fact that they delegate 99.999% of that control to individual developers doesn't change that fact. -- Jeff Ollie From jeff at ocjtech.us Thu Oct 8 16:48:51 2009 From: jeff at ocjtech.us (Jeffrey Ollie) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:48:51 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE11EA.6060108@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <4ACE11EA.6060108@redhat.com> Message-ID: <935ead450910080948r771f18b8v524f8565b2aaebe6@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > > This is too "all or nothing." ?There has been no discussion about excluding > contributors who have a different vision than the board. Fedora provides a > tremendous amount of flexibility and opportunity to do your own thing... > including creating your own distro. ?Even if the core direction Fedora is at > odds with some contributors, nobody is saying they can't do what they want > to, within reasonable bounds of course. And it's the board's responsibility to define "reasonable bounds". -- Jeff Ollie From inode0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 16:49:58 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:49:58 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE10F2.9070801@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <4ACE10F2.9070801@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: 2009/10/8 M?ir?n Duffy : > On 10/08/2009 11:58 AM, inode0 wrote: >> There is a strong hint in all of this that some people prefer a >> traditional hierarchical management structure to this project. >> Fundamentally that is what fills me with the trepidation I mentioned >> in my very first post on this thread. > > I don't think traditional hierarchical management is a foregone conclusion > with strong vision statements. No, it certainly isn't. And all I've been doing is expressing concern about hierarchical organization creep resulting from such proclamations becoming organizational dogma. If the statements guide contributors and potential contributors along the way that is all fine and good. If they become the justification for stifling/impeding/whatever the work of folks who think outside this box you define then I think it is bad. Avoid that and I'm content. :) John From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 16:52:29 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:52:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <4ACE10F2.9070801@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > 2009/10/8 M?ir?n Duffy : >> On 10/08/2009 11:58 AM, inode0 wrote: >>> There is a strong hint in all of this that some people prefer a >>> traditional hierarchical management structure to this project. >>> Fundamentally that is what fills me with the trepidation I mentioned >>> in my very first post on this thread. >> >> I don't think traditional hierarchical management is a foregone conclusion >> with strong vision statements. > > No, it certainly isn't. And all I've been doing is expressing concern > about hierarchical organization creep resulting from such > proclamations becoming organizational dogma. > > If the statements guide contributors and potential contributors along > the way that is all fine and good. If they become the justification > for stifling/impeding/whatever the work of folks who think outside > this box you define then I think it is bad. > > Avoid that and I'm content. :) A lot of producing something worth using is not about adding new bits. It's about taking away unnecessary bits. I've found that saying 'no' is often a gain. If that's stifling, so be it. -sv From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 16:54:00 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:54:00 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> On 10/07/2009 12:11 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html > > > At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. > Here I go :) > > 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things > forward and own these issues. Are there any board members that > disagree? Speak now or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) I've been thinking a lot about how I want to respond to this thread. Here are my thoughts: * I am troubled by the subtext of the repeated questioning of "What is Fedora", because I really don't think that is the question that is being asked. Instead, I think the question being asked (or at least, the question being answered) is: "Who is Fedora (the Linux Distribution) for?" If indeed, we are attempting to answer that question, it implies that there are users for whom Fedora is not, and will never be, a good fit. Even if this is practically true, it bothers me that we are saying that out loud. We're telling folks, go somewhere else if you don't fit into this nice box, don't bother trying to improve Fedora in those areas. If the Board were to say, that there are specific areas where Fedora would like to see more contributions, or even, primary areas of interest to the Board, I could probably be on board with that, as long as it was phrased in a way that made it obvious that it was not exclusionary. I do think that it is perfectly acceptable for each Fedora spin to have a different user target. In fact, I think each Spin's SIG should be answering the question of "Who is the target audience for this Fedora spin?". However, I think that we should leave that up to each Spin SIG to determine, and not mandate it from a Board level. I don't feel that such actions are exclusionary, even when applied to the default spin, because there is always opportunities for new Fedora spins to rise to fill a need. Hypothetically, if the Desktop SIG answered "Who is the target audience for the Fedora Desktop Spin?" with "Experienced Linux users and developers", I could easily see the value in organizing a "Fedora Simple" Spin, where the answer is "New Linux users", with a separate spin. And honestly, in that hypothetical situation, I'd strongly consider pushing for the "Fedora Simple" spin to be our default offering. I do not feel that good usability and new-user-friendlyness are at all in conflict with the needs of experienced Linux users and developers. *** Putting my Fedora Engineering Manager hat on *** If we look at the areas where Red Hat (easily Fedora's biggest contributor) contributes to Fedora (the Linux Distribution), it is in the following areas: * Kernel * SELinux * Server components * X * GNOME However, most of these are driven through the upstream, and rightfully so, in my opinion. It is important to remember that unlike some other entities (Canonical), Red Hat does not make Fedora in house, then present it to the world as a polished product. If there are areas where people would like to see Red Hat spend time and money on Fedora where we are not currently doing so, I am certainly open to suggestions. Just like all contributors to Fedora, Red Hat contributes in areas where it has interests. I would hate to see the Board decide that Fedora, as a project, is no longer interested in contributions from anyone, Red Hat or otherwise. *** Fedora Engineering Manager Hat off *** I think the thing that leaves me unsettled is that all of this seems to stem from the fact that some new users are not having a great experience with Fedora, and rather than analyze that problem and work on usability improvements, we are choosing to let those users go somewhere else, whether that is Mac OSX or Ubuntu or Windows. I think that such a decision is terribly short-sighted, and will result in a long-term loss of contributors, community, and possibly the eventual irrelevance of Fedora. ~spot From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:05:49 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:05:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/07/2009 12:11 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > > > > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html > > > > > > At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. > > Here I go :) > > > > 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things > > forward and own these issues. Are there any board members that > > disagree? Speak now or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) > > I've been thinking a lot about how I want to respond to this thread. > Here are my thoughts: > > * I am troubled by the subtext of the repeated questioning of "What is > Fedora", because I really don't think that is the question that is being > asked. Instead, I think the question being asked (or at least, the > question being answered) is: "Who is Fedora (the Linux Distribution) for?" > > If indeed, we are attempting to answer that question, it implies that > there are users for whom Fedora is not, and will never be, a good fit. My wife and both of my parents answered no to every single question on this page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Is_Fedora_For_Me Given that, it seems obvious to me that Fedora is not for them. -Mike From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 17:07:48 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom \"spot\" Callaway wrote: > > I've been thinking a lot about how I want to respond to this thread. > Here are my thoughts: > > * I am troubled by the subtext of the repeated questioning of "What is > Fedora", because I really don't think that is the question that is being > asked. Instead, I think the question being asked (or at least, the > question being answered) is: "Who is Fedora (the Linux Distribution) for?" > > If indeed, we are attempting to answer that question, it implies that > there are users for whom Fedora is not, and will never be, a good fit. > Even if this is practically true, it bothers me that we are saying that > out loud. We're telling folks, go somewhere else if you don't fit into > this nice box, don't bother trying to improve Fedora in those areas. We're already doing that. We've been doing that all along. If you want to make fedora better for some piece of closed source software: go somewhere else. If you want to make fedora use a bsd-core: go somewhere else. We draw those lines all the time. All this thread has suggested so far is let's narrow it down a bit more. Let's make it more than just freesoftware, linux people. Let's make it freesoftware/linux people that have a minimum level of experience. > > Hypothetically, if the Desktop SIG answered "Who is the target audience > for the Fedora Desktop Spin?" with "Experienced Linux users and > developers", I could easily see the value in organizing a "Fedora > Simple" Spin, where the answer is "New Linux users", with a separate spin. And the problem in both of these cases is this: you make certain choices based on who you are targetting. If you go to much toward the new user you piss off the advanced user. And since we CANNOT replace pkgs in spins - then we either have 27 'alternatives' or we do an arse-load of changes in %post to accomodate one set of users or the other. We've been over this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, Tom. When we had the FAD in RDU back in the summer you even conceded the point that you cannot develop for EVERYONE all at once. I believe it was Notting's point. The point I've always made is the same. You've made your choice. You are of the opinion that Fedora should be targetting new users first and foremost. Great. I'm glad you've made your choice - but if you continue to present the claim that you can develop for all users at all times you are begging the question. That's what is demobilizing the discussion. That's the CRUX of the problem. -sv From dimitris at glezos.com Thu Oct 8 17:13:40 2009 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:13:40 +0300 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> I, too, have been spending quite some time thinking about this topic and discussing it with various people -- both in the Fedora contirbutor community and outside. I'm quoting Tom's reply below because I find myself agreeing in almost all points, TBH. The fact that we keep asking, or being asked, this question, and every time we can't find an answer, might happen for a number of reasons. The question could not be the right one (in the sense that we don't have enough facts to answer it, or that the resulting answer will be too vague to be useful), Or, that, like Tom says, we're asking for different things than the question asks. Being a community effort, Fedora is probably not the best place to have a top-down answer on any such question. Yes, members of community want the Board to set a direction, but that's not really how open source works. Even if we do say "Let's focus simple users", someone needs to do that work. Instead, we've decided to put some serious effort, manpower and promotion of the Spins and the Fedora sub-projects ideas, exactly to let the community define its focus by itself. Having a default spin should never mean that this is indeed the direction we'd like Fedora to go to. It's just the best one right now. Agreeing with Tom, if we DO produce a Simple spin and blog and promote it, and people and media DO pick up, then I'd seriously consider dubbing that the default one. I'm consciously avoiding to satisfy my need for control in open source. Sure, I'd also LOVE to have a clear direction and everything. But this will strip the community's strongest tool, which is pluralism and freedom of choice from a diversity of different directions. I'd encourage people who would like to see Fedora go to a different direction to actually COME UP WITH A PLAN for it, and start implementing it. They'll have my full support, in all levels. In this sense, I disagree with folks who draw lines saying "we shouldn't do this" -- and I've expressed this opinion in all levels too. We should encourage people to try different things and CHANGE the Fedora goals. If the community follows, the Board will follow, because it's an organ by and for the Community. And to make a final point about the ability to develop for a number of audiences: I believe we can do it, if we look things from high-level. I don't really care about packages. I care that we can create a spin where after firstboot there is secondboot which is a tutorial for new users. Where the artwork includes fluffy clouds and pink ponies, if that's what a new user wants. We don't need to change the kernel. Addressing new users is not only technical. It's a lot more. And if there are people willing to do that, we should empower them. -d On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > Here are my thoughts: > > * I am troubled by the subtext of the repeated questioning of "What is > Fedora", because I really don't think that is the question that is being > asked. Instead, I think the question being asked (or at least, the > question being answered) is: "Who is Fedora (th > If indeed, we are attempting to answer that question, it implies that > there are users for whom Fedora is not, and will never be, a good fit. > Even if this is practically true, it bothers me that we are saying that > out loud. We're telling folks, go somewhere else if you don't fit into > this nice box, don't bother trying to improve Fedora in those areas. > > If the Board were to say, that there are specific areas where Fedora > would like to see more contributions, or even, primary areas of interest > to the Board, I could probably be on board with that, as long as it was > phrased in a way that made it obvious that it was not exclusionary. > > I do think that it is perfectly acceptable for each Fedora spin to have > a different user target. In fact, I think each Spin's SIG should be > answering the question of "Who is the target audience for this Fedora > spin?". However, I think that we should leave that up to each Spin SIG > to determine, and not mandate it from a Board level. I don't feel that > such actions are exclusionary, even when applied to the default spin, > because there is always opportunities for new Fedora spins to rise to > fill a need. > > Hypothetically, if the Desktop SIG answered "Who is the target audience > for the Fedora Desktop Spin?" with "Experienced Linux users and > developers", I could easily see the value in organizing a "Fedora > Simple" Spin, where the answer is "New Linux users", with a separate spin. > > And honestly, in that hypothetical situation, I'd strongly consider > pushing for the "Fedora Simple" spin to be our default offering. I do > not feel that good usability and new-user-friendlyness are at all in > conflict with the needs of experienced Linux users and developers. > > *** Putting my Fedora Engineering Manager hat on *** > > If we look at the areas where Red Hat (easily Fedora's biggest > contributor) contributes to Fedora (the Linux Distribution), it is in > the following areas: > > * Kernel > * SELinux > * Server components > * X > * GNOME > > However, most of these are driven through the upstream, and rightfully > so, in my opinion. > > It is important to remember that unlike some other entities (Canonical), > Red Hat does not make Fedora in house, then present it to the world as a > polished product. If there are areas where people would like to see Red > Hat spend time and money on Fedora where we are not currently doing so, > I am certainly open to suggestions. Just like all contributors to > Fedora, Red Hat contributes in areas where it has interests. > > I would hate to see the Board decide that Fedora, as a project, is no > longer interested in contributions from anyone, Red Hat or otherwise. > > *** Fedora Engineering Manager Hat off *** > > I think the thing that leaves me unsettled is that all of this seems to > stem from the fact that some new users are not having a great experience > with Fedora, and rather than analyze that problem and work on usability > improvements, we are choosing to let those users go somewhere else, > whether that is Mac OSX or Ubuntu or Windows. I think that such a > decision is terribly short-sighted, and will result in a long-term loss > of contributors, community, and possibly the eventual irrelevance of Fedora. > > ~spot > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 17:20:58 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:20:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > I, too, have been spending quite some time thinking about this topic > and discussing it with various people -- both in the Fedora > contirbutor community and outside. I'm quoting Tom's reply below > because I find myself agreeing in almost all points, TBH. > > I'm consciously avoiding to satisfy my need for control in open > source. Sure, I'd also LOVE to have a clear direction and everything. > But this will strip the community's strongest tool, which is pluralism > and freedom of choice from a diversity of different directions. > > I'd encourage people who would like to see Fedora go to a different > direction to actually COME UP WITH A PLAN for it, and start > implementing it. They'll have my full support, in all levels. In this > sense, I disagree with folks who draw lines saying "we shouldn't do > this" -- and I've expressed this opinion in all levels too. We should > encourage people to try different things and CHANGE the Fedora goals. > If the community follows, the Board will follow, because it's an organ > by and for the Community. Let's say some people here on this list wanted a non-gtk-fedora. And they prepared a set of patches for anaconda to get rid of the gtk/gnome requirement there. If we had enough people behind it would the board say to the anaconda team manager: the community has said they want a non-gtk-fedora. We should follow them? -sv From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:21:58 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:21:58 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <4ACE1FB6.60209@redhat.com> Mike McGrath said the following on 10/08/2009 07:56 AM Pacific Time: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: >>> Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead) >>> Looking for additional resources to do X or Y. I'd like to start >>> providing that. This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as >>> well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do >>> reporting back for various information. >>> >>> This is implementation though. All of which is well below the discussion >>> we're having. >> This is a perfect of example of a different kind of leadership. >> Someone sees a problem, decides the problem is worth solving, figures >> out who wants to solve it, provides them with the wherewithal to make >> it happen. >> >> I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are >> made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. The default >> spin keeps coming up so I guess either the board isn't happy with how >> that is working now or thinks additional guidance is needed by those >> creating it currently? To help alleviate new user/contributor >> confusion about what Fedora is? >> >> Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out >> technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases? Are >> there structural problems within the project that this would help? >> >> I know I probably sound like I'm set against this business, I really >> just don't see so much of the upside to it as I think you do and I'd >> like to really understand what its purpose is intended to be. >> >> Being honest, I am concerned it could be used to broaden the board's >> involvement in areas of the project where delegation of responsibility >> already seems to exist. >> > > Honestly the discussion we're having on F-A-B right now is a major > distraction to the who is fedora for topic of which is my primary concern. > There doesn't seem to be any consensus among the Board, most have remained > quiet until a scheduled meeting so my hopes of any actual change are > quickly vanishing. Which is totally fine. The problem I'm trying to > solve is arguments and future planning being done by those who shout the > loudest or longest. Lots of different engineers pulling Fedora in > different directions instead of having us all work towards one direction. > I seem to be in an incredible minority in thinking this. > A proposal was made to cancel our board meeting today because two people couldn't attend and so that we could all dedicate some time to posting here. In the interest of full disclosure, less than half the board members respond to that proposal. I had hoped to spend my time answering the original questions I posed, but instead spent it reading the other posts and trying to write some thoughtful replies which always take me too long :-/ I plan to reply to my original questions by the end of tomorrow (2009-10-09), hopefully earlier. I don't agree that it is fine that a number of board members have remained silent. I believe we have been elected and appointed with an obligation to participate. I recognize and respect that everyone has busy lives. I also believe that if other things get in the way we have an obligation to let others know or step down so others can get involved. I think we should hear from everyone and that the position of each board member should be made clear. Maybe some have been silent because they think the way this are currently is fine. If that is the case, they should say that and motion that we drop this topic from future agendas. The other part of this process on fedora-advisory-board was to hear what the community thinks about all of this. I'm hoping there will be more non-board members who will give their voice to whether the questions I originally raised are the right ones, wrong ones, etc. I would also hope that if there are those that think they are the wrong questions to ask they will provide constructive criticism to help us find a new direction. Thanks, John From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:22:31 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:22:31 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 01:05 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >> On 10/07/2009 12:11 AM, John Poelstra wrote: >>> >>> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html >>> >>> >>> At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. >>> Here I go :) >>> >>> 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things >>> forward and own these issues. Are there any board members that >>> disagree? Speak now or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) >> >> I've been thinking a lot about how I want to respond to this thread. >> Here are my thoughts: >> >> * I am troubled by the subtext of the repeated questioning of "What is >> Fedora", because I really don't think that is the question that is being >> asked. Instead, I think the question being asked (or at least, the >> question being answered) is: "Who is Fedora (the Linux Distribution) for?" >> >> If indeed, we are attempting to answer that question, it implies that >> there are users for whom Fedora is not, and will never be, a good fit. > > My wife and both of my parents answered no to every single question on > this page: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Is_Fedora_For_Me Heh. I knew you would choose to respond solely to that item, Mike. For what it is worth, I disagree with the spirit and wording of that wiki page. In my mind, it is roughly analogous to this: http://ford.com/not_real/Are_Ford_Cars_For_Me Background =========== Ford cars are not for everyone, although Ford works hard to make our cars as usable as possible for the widest possible audience. Finding Out ============ To find out whether Ford cars are suitable for you, ask yourself the following: * Are you a NASCAR driver? * Do you want a car that features brand new technologies that will show up in future cars? * Are you okay with having to change your car's oil every 3,000 miles? * Do you care about the Automotive Unions? * Would you like to become a car mechanic? If the answer to any or all of these questions is "yes", you should consider a Ford car! ***** This line of reasoning isn't remotely inclusionary, in fact, it is almost poisonous. The wording about the "widest possible audience" is a lie, because we promptly follow it up with wording to exclude new users. Now, balance that with what I said about the validity of each Fedora spin having a target audience. I think it might be fine (albeit, disappointing) for someone to discover that there is no Fedora spin which is a good fit for them, but for us to say that we will never give a damn about them across all possible distribution spins... well, I don't think I can back that in good conscience. ~spot From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:22:56 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:22:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > > I'd encourage people who would like to see Fedora go to a different > direction to actually COME UP WITH A PLAN for it, and start > implementing it. They'll have my full support, in all levels. In this > sense, I disagree with folks who draw lines saying "we shouldn't do > this" -- and I've expressed this opinion in all levels too. We should > encourage people to try different things and CHANGE the Fedora goals. > If the community follows, the Board will follow, because it's an organ > by and for the Community. > So in Infrastructure, should we be focusing on the search engine so new inexperienced users can more easily find answers to questions through our various docs via keywords and things we define? Or should I be focusing on being first to support IPv6 and implementing dnssec for our advanced users. Sure, they might both get done eventually. But the amount of need does not equal our ability to do. So I have to pick. Except that I don't know who I'm picking for. -Mike From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 17:29:53 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:29:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Dimitris Glezos wrote: >> >> I'd encourage people who would like to see Fedora go to a different >> direction to actually COME UP WITH A PLAN for it, and start >> implementing it. They'll have my full support, in all levels. In this >> sense, I disagree with folks who draw lines saying "we shouldn't do >> this" -- and I've expressed this opinion in all levels too. We should >> encourage people to try different things and CHANGE the Fedora goals. >> If the community follows, the Board will follow, because it's an organ >> by and for the Community. >> > > So in Infrastructure, should we be focusing on the search engine so new > inexperienced users can more easily find answers to questions through our > various docs via keywords and things we define? > > Or should I be focusing on being first to support IPv6 and implementing > dnssec for our advanced users. > > Sure, they might both get done eventually. But the amount of need does > not equal our ability to do. So I have to pick. Except that I don't know > who I'm picking for. > Let me see if I can sum up the differences in this thread to a couple of options: 1. pick a target audience and follow down that path, as rigidly as we possibly can, excluding and removing things which distract us from the target. 2. Don't pick a target, cast out as large a number as possible of directions and see who we pick up. Then cast out more. That's what I see as the differences. -sv From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:30:00 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:30:00 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE2198.4070505@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 01:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > We've been over this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, Tom. When we had the > FAD in RDU back in the summer you even conceded the point > that you cannot develop for EVERYONE all at once. I believe it was > Notting's point. *sigh* Let me try to be succinct. * Simply because Fedora may not have a spin that is currently a good fit for some users does not mean that we will never have a spin that is a good fit for them. By making blanket declarations such as "Fedora is for experienced users", we prevent growth and we turn away users. I am not opposed to letting the SIGs that are responsible for the Fedora Spins decide who their target users are. I am opposed to the Fedora Board excluding any possibility of a Spin targeting a large subset of users, be it new users, Spanish speaking users, blind users, or women. ~spot From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 8 17:27:50 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:27:50 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE2116.9070908@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/08/2009 12:54 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > * I am troubled by the subtext of the repeated questioning of "What is > Fedora", because I really don't think that is the question that is being > asked. Instead, I think the question being asked (or at least, the > question being answered) is: "Who is Fedora (the Linux Distribution) for?" > > If indeed, we are attempting to answer that question, it implies that > there are users for whom Fedora is not, and will never be, a good fit. > Even if this is practically true, it bothers me that we are saying that > out loud. We're telling folks, go somewhere else if you don't fit into > this nice box, don't bother trying to improve Fedora in those areas. > > If the Board were to say, that there are specific areas where Fedora > would like to see more contributions, or even, primary areas of interest > to the Board, I could probably be on board with that, as long as it was > phrased in a way that made it obvious that it was not exclusionary. I agree. When we define a target set of users for Fedora, there is a risk of being exclusionary. We shouldn't and don't need to be exclusionary, however. At least not from a design-needs perspective. :) An example I tell people about a lot is Bob Plath, the inventor of rolling luggage [1]. He was an airline pilot and he designed it specifically with flight crew in mind - not passengers. He wasn't looking to make luggage that was better for everybody. He was looking to make luggage that made life easier for flight crew specifically. That focused his design to be good enough that it just so happened to be generally useful to everyone. I think it would have been hard to come up with a good design when trying to please everyone - you end up in this kind of hell: http://blog.monochrome.co.uk/2009/02/if-architects-had-to-work-like-software-developers/ The 'Fedora is for everyone' path also has a big risk though, and that is the other thing I warn people about - the Alan Cooper car. (see attached.) This is why I think the best approach is to pick a primary target set of users, design to them - putting your primary users at the top of the priority when making design decisions - but don't exclude anyone else. Keep things open, but definitely draw a line in terms of where your priorities lay so you can make good consistent decisions that support your primary user rather than wily-nily decisions all over the place and end up with an Alan Cooper car. > Hypothetically, if the Desktop SIG answered "Who is the target audience > for the Fedora Desktop Spin?" with "Experienced Linux users and > developers", I could easily see the value in organizing a "Fedora > Simple" Spin, where the answer is "New Linux users", with a separate spin. > > And honestly, in that hypothetical situation, I'd strongly consider > pushing for the "Fedora Simple" spin to be our default offering. I do > not feel that good usability and new-user-friendlyness are at all in > conflict with the needs of experienced Linux users and developers. I agree. I think that more experienced users and developers are a little frightened of a Fedora Simple - there's certainly a risk of making it annoying for them, but I don't think that will necessarily be the case. I think if we do things right, in the end a Fedora Simple would be something good for advanced techies to use as well. E.g., I don't think OS X's primary target is developers, but I think there are plenty of highly-technical developers and other folks who enjoy using OS X. > I think the thing that leaves me unsettled is that all of this seems to > stem from the fact that some new users are not having a great experience > with Fedora, and rather than analyze that problem and work on usability > improvements, we are choosing to let those users go somewhere else, > whether that is Mac OSX or Ubuntu or Windows. I think that such a > decision is terribly short-sighted, and will result in a long-term loss > of contributors, community, and possibly the eventual irrelevance of Fedora. Absolutely agreed. ~m [1] http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/03/01/8253083/index.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: alancoopercar.png Type: image/png Size: 112899 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:36:12 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:36:12 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/08/2009 01:05 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > >> On 10/07/2009 12:11 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > >>> > >>> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html > >>> > >>> > >>> At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. > >>> Here I go :) > >>> > >>> 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things > >>> forward and own these issues. Are there any board members that > >>> disagree? Speak now or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) > >> > >> I've been thinking a lot about how I want to respond to this thread. > >> Here are my thoughts: > >> > >> * I am troubled by the subtext of the repeated questioning of "What is > >> Fedora", because I really don't think that is the question that is being > >> asked. Instead, I think the question being asked (or at least, the > >> question being answered) is: "Who is Fedora (the Linux Distribution) for?" > >> > >> If indeed, we are attempting to answer that question, it implies that > >> there are users for whom Fedora is not, and will never be, a good fit. > > > > My wife and both of my parents answered no to every single question on > > this page: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Is_Fedora_For_Me > > Heh. I knew you would choose to respond solely to that item, Mike. > Because it's the simplest illustration of the problem. One you still haven't directly answered but instead deflect. After all, they still don't agree with our values and they don't seem any more willing to change their values as we do ours. Does that make us right and them wrong? Of course not. > For what it is worth, I disagree with the spirit and wording of that > wiki page. In my mind, it is roughly analogous to this: > > http://ford.com/not_real/Are_Ford_Cars_For_Me > > Background > =========== > Ford cars are not for everyone, although Ford works hard to make our > cars as usable as possible for the widest possible audience. > > Finding Out > ============ > To find out whether Ford cars are suitable for you, ask yourself the > following: > > * Are you a NASCAR driver? > * Do you want a car that features brand new technologies that will show > up in future cars? > * Are you okay with having to change your car's oil every 3,000 miles? > * Do you care about the Automotive Unions? > * Would you like to become a car mechanic? > > If the answer to any or all of these questions is "yes", you should > consider a Ford car! > > ***** > > This line of reasoning isn't remotely inclusionary, in fact, it is > almost poisonous. The wording about the "widest possible audience" is a > lie, because we promptly follow it up with wording to exclude new users. > > Now, balance that with what I said about the validity of each Fedora > spin having a target audience. I think it might be fine (albeit, > disappointing) for someone to discover that there is no Fedora spin > which is a good fit for them, but for us to say that we will never give > a damn about them across all possible distribution spins... well, I > don't think I can back that in good conscience. > In the meantime they're driving Toyota. And as much as it pains me to say it, it was much more painful to hear. They prefer the Toyota and have been happy using it for the last 2 weeks. But the more I think about it the more it made sense. Their values and our values are very different. So, given the opportunity to talk to them directly, what would you possibly say that would change their mind? -Mike From dimitris at glezos.com Thu Oct 8 17:35:48 2009 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:35:48 +0300 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6d4237680910081035p282e49d9m9caf72124da5fdaa@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Dimitris Glezos wrote: >> >> I'd encourage people who would like to see Fedora go to a different >> direction to actually COME UP WITH A PLAN for it, and start >> implementing it. They'll have my full support, in all levels. In this >> sense, I disagree with folks who draw lines saying "we shouldn't do >> this" -- and I've expressed this opinion in all levels too. We should >> encourage people to try different things and CHANGE the Fedora goals. >> If the community follows, the Board will follow, because it's an organ >> by and for the Community. >> > > So in Infrastructure, should we be focusing on the search engine so new > inexperienced users can more easily find answers to questions through our > various docs via keywords and things we define? > > Or should I be focusing on being first to support IPv6 and implementing > dnssec for our advanced users. > > Sure, they might both get done eventually. ?But the amount of need does > not equal our ability to do. ?So I have to pick. ?Except that I don't know > who I'm picking for. I really believe you do have enough feedback to judge. You do know that, if we publicize Search, it'll be ultra useful for users. If you want to know what users want, take a look at fedoraforum, or any other place where users hang around. Or just ask. Like Ubuntu does. Just don't expect volunteer contributors to follow. They'll scratch their own itch, as always. And that's good. =) -d -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:37:52 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:37:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE2198.4070505@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE2198.4070505@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/08/2009 01:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > We've been over this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, Tom. When we had the > > FAD in RDU back in the summer you even conceded the point > > that you cannot develop for EVERYONE all at once. I believe it was > > Notting's point. > > *sigh* Let me try to be succinct. > > * Simply because Fedora may not have a spin that is currently a good fit > for some users does not mean that we will never have a spin that is a > good fit for them. By making blanket declarations such as "Fedora is for > experienced users", we prevent growth and we turn away users. > I don't think spins are nearly as different as we think they are. -Mike From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 17:38:32 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:38:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <6d4237680910081035p282e49d9m9caf72124da5fdaa@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> <6d4237680910081035p282e49d9m9caf72124da5fdaa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > > I really believe you do have enough feedback to judge. You do know > that, if we publicize Search, it'll be ultra useful for users. > > If you want to know what users want, take a look at fedoraforum, or > any other place where users hang around. Or just ask. Like Ubuntu > does. Just don't expect volunteer contributors to follow. They'll > scratch their own itch, as always. And that's good. =) > Then let's look at it like accessibility issues. If we have to assign resources and we have a choice between making the place wheelchair accessible and making a new pedestrian bridge, which one should we make? -sv From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:43:34 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:43:34 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 01:36 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > So, given the opportunity to talk to them directly, what would you > possibly say that would change their mind? Quoting myself: I think the thing that leaves me unsettled is that all of this seems to stem from the fact that some new users are not having a great experience with Fedora, and rather than analyze that problem and work on usability improvements, we are choosing to let those users go somewhere else, whether that is Mac OSX or Ubuntu or Windows. I think that such a decision is terribly short-sighted, and will result in a long-term loss of contributors, community, and possibly the eventual irrelevance of Fedora. ***** To answer your specific question Mike, I wouldn't try to change their mind. What I would do is try to figure out what they liked about Windows and what they didn't like about Fedora. And if it turns out that there isn't a Fedora Spin currently available that is a good fit for them, then I'd either work towards making one that was, or wait and see if the community came up with a Spin that was a good fit for them. Being blunt: It doesn't bother me that my wife uses Windows. It would bother me a lot if the Board decides that Fedora will never be for her. It wouldn't bother me at all if the Desktop SIG decides that their Fedora spin isn't for her, because I could always start a "Fedora Simple" SIG that worked towards a Fedora Spin that would be a good fit for her. ~spot From inode0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 17:45:18 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:45:18 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <4ACE10F2.9070801@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: >> 2009/10/8 M?ir?n Duffy : >>> On 10/08/2009 11:58 AM, inode0 wrote: >>>> >>>> There is a strong hint in all of this that some people prefer a >>>> traditional hierarchical management structure to this project. >>>> Fundamentally that is what fills me with the trepidation I mentioned >>>> in my very first post on this thread. >>> >>> I don't think traditional hierarchical management is a foregone >>> conclusion >>> with strong vision statements. >> >> No, it certainly isn't. And all I've been doing is expressing concern >> about hierarchical organization creep resulting from such >> proclamations becoming organizational dogma. >> >> If the statements guide contributors and potential contributors along >> the way that is all fine and good. If they become the justification >> for stifling/impeding/whatever the work of folks who think outside >> this box you define then I think it is bad. >> >> Avoid that and I'm content. :) > > A lot of producing something worth using is not about adding new bits. It's > about taking away unnecessary bits. > > I've found that saying 'no' is often a gain. If that's stifling, so be it. Saying no isn't the issue. Contributors say no on a daily basis, SIGs say no, steering committees say no, the board says no. The issue, which is really hard to discuss without a vision statement on the table, is whether that vision statement will have any teeth in it. If it does have teeth then we are defining a sandbox into which new contributors (and old) are expected to play and we are telling them in advance that if their favorite game doesn't fit in our sandbox they aren't welcome to play with us. John From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 17:47:09 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom \"spot\" Callaway wrote: > > Being blunt: It doesn't bother me that my wife uses Windows. > It would bother me a lot if the Board decides that Fedora will never be > for her. It wouldn't bother me at all if the Desktop SIG decides that > their Fedora spin isn't for her, because I could always start a "Fedora > Simple" SIG that worked towards a Fedora Spin that would be a good fit > for her. > Provided that in order to make that "simple" spin you didn't need to modify or patch ANY packages. -sv From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:51:11 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:51:11 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 01:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > Provided that in order to make that "simple" spin you didn't need to > modify or patch ANY packages. Again, I refer to the point I made about usability and new-user-friendlyness not being in any way exclusionary to "experienced users". It is possible (and common) to add functionality in acceptable ways that is configurable, then permit a spin to change the default configuration chosen for its users. I should really not be needing to explain this to you. ;) ~spot From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:53:25 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:53:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/08/2009 01:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > Provided that in order to make that "simple" spin you didn't need to > > modify or patch ANY packages. > > Again, I refer to the point I made about usability and > new-user-friendlyness not being in any way exclusionary to "experienced > users". > Do you really think Fedora's values are everyones values and the only problems here are related to QA and usability? -Mike From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 17:56:06 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:56:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom \"spot\" Callaway wrote: > On 10/08/2009 01:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> Provided that in order to make that "simple" spin you didn't need to >> modify or patch ANY packages. > > Again, I refer to the point I made about usability and > new-user-friendlyness not being in any way exclusionary to "experienced > users". > > It is possible (and common) to add functionality in acceptable ways that > is configurable, then permit a spin to change the default configuration > chosen for its users. I should really not be needing to explain this to > you. ;) I'll keep that in mind for when kevin sends his qt-based-anaconda patches again so the kde-spin doesn't have to cart along gtk. :) -sv From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:56:56 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:56:56 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE27E8.2080207@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 01:53 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Do you really think Fedora's values are everyones values and the only > problems here are related to QA and usability? I think the fact that some users are not having a good experience with Fedora is the primary motivator behind this. I also think that having the Board decree that Fedora will henceforth exclude those users is not an appropriate way to resolve that issue. ~spot From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 17:58:54 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:58:54 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE285E.3030406@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 01:56 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > I'll keep that in mind for when kevin sends his qt-based-anaconda > patches again so the kde-spin doesn't have to cart along gtk. :) Doing it hackishly is not the answer for anything. But it could be done. I can think of at least two ways, three if you count a fork of anaconda. ~spot From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 18:01:25 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE285E.3030406@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE285E.3030406@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom \"spot\" Callaway wrote: > On 10/08/2009 01:56 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> I'll keep that in mind for when kevin sends his qt-based-anaconda >> patches again so the kde-spin doesn't have to cart along gtk. :) > > Doing it hackishly is not the answer for anything. But it could be done. > I can think of at least two ways, three if you count a fork of anaconda. Yes, a fork of anaconda going into fedora for a spin.... I can't wait to see what that rat hole looks like. -sv From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 18:03:43 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:03:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE27E8.2080207@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE27E8.2080207@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/08/2009 01:53 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > Do you really think Fedora's values are everyones values and the only > > problems here are related to QA and usability? > > I think the fact that some users are not having a good experience with > Fedora is the primary motivator behind this. > > I also think that having the Board decree that Fedora will henceforth > exclude those users is not an appropriate way to resolve that issue. > Why are you avoiding the values question? Not everyone agrees with us. As a result we are not and will not be targeting some users. -Mike From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 8 18:00:27 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:00:27 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ACE28BB.4000803@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/08/2009 01:29 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > Let me see if I can sum up the differences in this thread to a couple of > options: > > 1. pick a target audience and follow down that path, as rigidly as we > possibly can, excluding and removing things which distract us from the > target. > > 2. Don't pick a target, cast out as large a number as possible of > directions and see who we pick up. Then cast out more. I'm seeing a third: 3. Pick a primary target audience and cater to their needs as the highest priority, others a secondary priority, in a default spin, as the main focus of the project. Continue to enable other communities to build other spins with differing targets. Clearly delineate between the default spin and secondary spins - the default is more 'the product', the secondary spins more the 'innovation / research lab.' If you take away the spins space (and it doesn't need to be in the form of producing spins, eg. there are cool things in spins I'd like to be able to install on top of a default install) then you take away the ability to experiment & learn. Perhaps I'm just re-posing #1 in a softer way, though. Looking at things in terms of spins poses Fedora as a platform; looking in terms of the default spin you're viewing it more as a single product. I think a platform is complicated and hard to sell to anyone but technical users & developers which is why I tend to think the folks who support that as our target userbase are very supportive of promoting spins. Fedora-as-platform vs. Fedora-as-desktop-product also makes folks unfamiliar with Fedora wonder what the heck it is, which I think is why the question 'What is Fedora' keeps coming up. I don't think the question should be 'What is Fedora' because we know at a great depth what Fedora is. The question should be perhaps, 'What should we tell someone in an elevator what Fedora is?' E.g., let me pose a few different strategies based on potential answers to the elevator pitch question. 1) "Fedora is a desktop operating system that you can use as an alternative to Microsoft Windows or Apple's OS X." The resulting strategy would be a default Desktop or Simple Fedora spin being productized as the *Fedora* itself. You go to the website, perhaps not fedoraproject.org, maybe something like fedoralinux.org or getfedora.org or fedoraos.org, and you see a site solely focused on extolling the virtues of using Fedora, obtaining Fedora, and getting help with using Fedora. The platform and community get branded as 'the Fedora community' or 'the Fedora Project' and are no longer branded as being Fedora itself. There's a website likely fedoraproject.org (but maybe based on Fedora Community) geared far more towards joining the project, starting a new group or project, finding tasks to work on to help out, filing bugs, etc. etc. etc. 2) "Fedora is a family of operating systems. These operating systems are tailored versions of an operating system with different goals and specific target uses. For example, we have the Fedora Electronic Lab and the Fedora Art Studio. We throw them at the wall and see what sticks and promote the strongest ones." The resulting strategy would likely result in individual spins having their own websites. E.g., fedoraelectroniclab.org, fedoraartstudio.org. They may have light overarching Fedora branding to keep a common thread between them and to link back to the mothership fedoraproject.org, but they'll have a lot of latitude besides that in tailoring their branding and messaging to attract their target audience (which may differ wildly from the target audiences of other spins.) Your fedoraproject.org here would serve as a directory of spins, supporting heavily both the downloading and usage of individual spins. It would keep the most well-established / successful ones front and center. It would also promotes the creation of new spins and provides workflow for anybody to come in an do this. Maybe it'd have some kind of 'spin creation lab.' You'd probably have rating systems and forums for the different spins and it would result in a large community of sub-communities around individual spins. 3) "Fedora is a desktop operating system for free & open source software developers and highly-technical folks." Here you'd probably end up with a default spin with a ton of complex features in it with a high level of customization - KDE would probably make a better choice for default desktop here since it tends to be a lot more customizable than GNOME. You'd have the development tools package group installed by default, or maybe have different primary spins, eg. OS Developer, Java Application Developer, LAMP developer, etc. On the website, you'd probably end up putting a lot more focus and polish on working with Fedora Hosted, since we're supporting developers in making FOSS. You would keep spins around and they would be really important, but you would be able to get by with just the tools we have in place for them rather than having a nice interactive website for creating them and rating them and such. I don't know that any of this really changes the ingredients we've got, just the recipe we're making with them. And I think the vision is the recipe we need to decide on. ~m From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 18:05:17 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:05:17 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE27E8.2080207@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE29DD.7050608@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 02:03 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >> On 10/08/2009 01:53 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: >>> Do you really think Fedora's values are everyones values and the only >>> problems here are related to QA and usability? >> >> I think the fact that some users are not having a good experience with >> Fedora is the primary motivator behind this. >> >> I also think that having the Board decree that Fedora will henceforth >> exclude those users is not an appropriate way to resolve that issue. >> > > Why are you avoiding the values question? Not everyone agrees with us. > As a result we are not and will not be targeting some users. I think values matter. I think they matter more to contributors. I don't give a cat's butt whether they matter to our users or not. I'd hope that they do, but if they don't, and the user doesn't care, why should I? ~spot From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 8 18:19:59 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:19:59 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/08/2009 01:53 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >> On 10/08/2009 01:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >>> Provided that in order to make that "simple" spin you didn't need to >>> modify or patch ANY packages. >> >> Again, I refer to the point I made about usability and >> new-user-friendlyness not being in any way exclusionary to "experienced >> users". >> > > Do you really think Fedora's values are everyones values and the only > problems here are related to QA and usability? I don't think Fedora's values are everyone's values; far from it. But I think there are tons of folks who are not highly technical who share those values. E.g., I think there are plenty of non-technical folks who would say yes to these question: * Do you care about sustainable progress in software freedom and innovation? Think about how in demand the Toyota Prius is. People aren't buying it for the low price, and I don't think they are buying it because they are car technicians and appreciate its technology. I think they are buying it because it promises to support a value of being better to the environment. The organic food movement - yes, that apple is more expensive, but it's better for me and the environment - people are buying more organic produce than ever before. And they're not farmers or food scientists or physicians. I know most people just want their computer to work and beyond that could care less what it runs, and Mike that may be your wife and parents' case. But I think it is still possible to care about what runs on our computers from a values point-of-view, without being fully entrenched in the domain / highly technical. I think non-technical folks can appreciate the values behind our software and to choose them over other, easier alternatives. A confusion I get from your point about your wife and parents, Mike, is that I am assuming they are non-technical, and don't share Fedora's values. But I what I'm trying to pose here is that you can be non-technical AND share Fedora's values. The problem is the software isn't designed for non-technical folks in mind. And we ask if our non-technical wife or our brother or our neighbor share our values, and chances are they don't. Then we make the false assumption that it's not worth supporting non-technical users because they all don't share our values. ~m From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 18:33:35 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:33:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal Message-ID: Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of some irc-discussions: Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. And users reinstalling are reinstalling. It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it will test how well our processes work. And if we have stunning success then the board re-evals the default spin again. thoughts? -sv From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 18:38:39 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 13:38:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/08/2009 01:53 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > > > On 10/08/2009 01:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > > Provided that in order to make that "simple" spin you didn't need to > > > > modify or patch ANY packages. > > > > > > Again, I refer to the point I made about usability and > > > new-user-friendlyness not being in any way exclusionary to "experienced > > > users". > > > > > > > Do you really think Fedora's values are everyones values and the only > > problems here are related to QA and usability? > > I don't think Fedora's values are everyone's values; far from it. But I think > there are tons of folks who are not highly technical who share those values. > E.g., I think there are plenty of non-technical folks who would say yes to > these question: > > * Do you care about sustainable progress in software freedom and innovation? > > Think about how in demand the Toyota Prius is. People aren't buying it for the > low price, and I don't think they are buying it because they are car > technicians and appreciate its technology. I think they are buying it because > it promises to support a value of being better to the environment. The organic > food movement - yes, that apple is more expensive, but it's better for me and > the environment - people are buying more organic produce than ever before. And > they're not farmers or food scientists or physicians. > Exactly. They built the prius for people that wanted to be greener or get better gas milage. They picked a group that was certainly less then everyone and targeted them. Home run. > I know most people just want their computer to work and beyond that could care > less what it runs, and Mike that may be your wife and parents' case. But I > think it is still possible to care about what runs on our computers from a > values point-of-view, without being fully entrenched in the domain / highly > technical. I think non-technical folks can appreciate the values behind our > software and to choose them over other, easier alternatives. > > A confusion I get from your point about your wife and parents, Mike, is that I > am assuming they are non-technical, and don't share Fedora's values. But I > what I'm trying to pose here is that you can be non-technical AND share > Fedora's values. > I should probably state this more clearly. I sort of feel the Fedora should be for technical people, I want to see Fedora the lab, where people come to do, not use. But I strongly feel that the audience should be narrowed. Even if that is to new users. But yes, I absolutely agree that people can share Fedora's values and be non-technical. > The problem is the software isn't designed for non-technical folks in mind. > And we ask if our non-technical wife or our brother or our neighbor share our > values, and chances are they don't. Then we make the false assumption that > it's not worth supporting non-technical users because they all don't share our > values. > I'm in the view we cannot please everyone all the time. My experiences on this earth have lead me to believe that is impossible without an infinite amount of resources. So we have to pick otherwise we have the mob rule we have now. You're right, our software isn't designed for non-technical folks. The question is, should it be? Where we're left is no hope of building a prius. The larger tires and roll cage being designed by some engineers just won't work with the smaller more gas efficient engine our other engineers are designing. -Mike From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 8 18:54:15 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:54:15 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/08/2009 02:38 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > I'm in the view we cannot please everyone all the time. My experiences on > this earth have lead me to believe that is impossible without an infinite > amount of resources. So we have to pick otherwise we have the mob rule we > have now. You're right, our software isn't designed for non-technical > folks. The question is, should it be? > > Where we're left is no hope of building a prius. The larger tires and > roll cage being designed by some engineers just won't work with the > smaller more gas efficient engine our other engineers are designing. If we focus on highly-technical users, which is a totally valid path, can we achieve our goals as a project? ~m From jonstanley at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 18:59:10 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:59:10 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > thoughts? I would think that if we're going to change, it'd have to be KDE, as Xfce doesn't have the broad support that our users need (I use Xfce every day, and if it were my first exposure to Fedora I'd think it was....lacking. But that's the intention of Xfce). The argument against KDE is the same as it always has been - we are, as unfortunate to some as it may be, a GNOME focused shop. A lot of upstream GNOME development occurs inside the walls of RHT (not saying that should be a driving focus of where Fedora goes, read on...), whereas not a lot of KDE development does. Fedora is the natural place to showcase these features, and a lot of them are not as well integrated into KDE as they could be. Not judging here, just stating objective, provable facts. That being said, I'm not opposed to the proposal, it would be a good experiment. From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 19:05:09 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > >> thoughts? > > I would think that if we're going to change, it'd have to be KDE, as > Xfce doesn't have the broad support that our users need (I use Xfce > every day, and if it were my first exposure to Fedora I'd think it > was....lacking. But that's the intention of Xfce). > > The argument against KDE is the same as it always has been - we are, > as unfortunate to some as it may be, a GNOME focused shop. A lot of > upstream GNOME development occurs inside the walls of RHT (not saying > that should be a driving focus of where Fedora goes, read on...), > whereas not a lot of KDE development does. Fedora is the natural place > to showcase these features, and a lot of them are not as well > integrated into KDE as they could be. Not judging here, just stating > objective, provable facts. Even more the point, of course: No one is saying there won't be a gnome desktop spin. Just that the default spin would be something else. our gnome developers don't stop what they are doing. Their work is not lost or mitigated anymore than someone working on xfce or lxde is hurt b/c the xfce or lxde spin is not the default. -sv From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 19:07:11 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:07:11 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/08/2009 02:38 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > I'm in the view we cannot please everyone all the time. My experiences on > > this earth have lead me to believe that is impossible without an infinite > > amount of resources. So we have to pick otherwise we have the mob rule we > > have now. You're right, our software isn't designed for non-technical > > folks. The question is, should it be? > > > > Where we're left is no hope of building a prius. The larger tires and > > roll cage being designed by some engineers just won't work with the > > smaller more gas efficient engine our other engineers are designing. > > If we focus on highly-technical users, which is a totally valid path, can we > achieve our goals as a project? > Well, if our mission (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission) is: Striving to lead not follow. Seeks to create, improve, and spread free/libre code and content Succeed through shared action on the part of the community. All of that stuff, to me, sounds like things my wife has no interest in but stuff experienced users would be very interested in. With those experienced users I'd expect we can accomplish each of those mission goals. Inexperienced users would seem to distract us from those mission goals. -Mike From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 19:13:44 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:13:44 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4ACE39E8.3090209@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 03:07 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Seeks to create, improve, and spread free/libre code and content It's noteworthy that these are the Fedora community goals, not a requirement that all Fedora users must do these things in order to be valid users. Also, it does say "spread free/libre code and content", not "spread free/libre code and content, but only to people who already know what to do with it". ~spot From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 19:17:46 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:17:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE39E8.3090209@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE39E8.3090209@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/08/2009 03:07 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > Seeks to create, improve, and spread free/libre code and content > > It's noteworthy that these are the Fedora community goals, not a > requirement that all Fedora users must do these things in order to be > valid users. > > Also, it does say "spread free/libre code and content", not "spread > free/libre code and content, but only to people who already know what to > do with it". > There's a reason you need a drivers license to drive a car. Perhaps if our 'new users' were better prepared they wouldn't have such a not 'great experience with Fedora' We can advance the whole Linux field faster if we're not so focused on people that have expressed an interest in not using our software. Let us innovate, let the other distros polish and customize as they see fit. -Mike From mclasen at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 19:24:01 2009 From: mclasen at redhat.com (Matthias Clasen) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:24:01 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1255029841.1795.2.camel@planemask> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 14:33 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of > some irc-discussions: > > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest > the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. > > It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. > And users reinstalling are reinstalling. > > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it will > test how well our processes work. > > And if we have stunning success then the board re-evals the default spin > again. > > thoughts? What a great idea. Lets also switch to zypper for that release. The yum developers can just keep doing whatever they are doing... Deal ? From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 19:27:42 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:27:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <1255029841.1795.2.camel@planemask> References: <1255029841.1795.2.camel@planemask> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 14:33 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: >> Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of >> some irc-discussions: >> >> Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest >> the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. >> >> It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. >> And users reinstalling are reinstalling. >> >> It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it will >> test how well our processes work. >> >> And if we have stunning success then the board re-evals the default spin >> again. >> >> thoughts? > > What a great idea. Lets also switch to zypper for that release. The yum > developers can just keep doing whatever they are doing... > > Deal ? I suggested the desktop spin default change b/c it already exists. No code has to be modified to go from the gnome livecd being presented to the kde livecd being presented as default. none. -sv From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 19:30:00 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:30:00 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE39E8.3090209@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE3DB8.107@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 03:17 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > There's a reason you need a drivers license to drive a car. And it is not because it ensures you have a "great experience". It is to prevent you from killing other people. Thankfully, we have no such problem with Fedora. ~spot From a.badger at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 19:36:15 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:36:15 -0700 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091008193615.GE513@clingman.lan> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 02:33:35PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of > some irc-discussions: > > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest > the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. > > It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. > And users reinstalling are reinstalling. > > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it > will test how well our processes work. > > And if we have stunning success then the board re-evals the default spin > again. > > thoughts? I like the daring of this plan. I think it has the potential to improve Fedora quite a lot. However, I think it has more potential to improve Fedora through finding all the points of failure when we do this than in having a rousing success. For instance, GNOME and KDE use several of the same libraries under the hood. What conflicts does this cause if we have to/have to not upgrade a library due to version conflicts? Finding those sorts of pain points and figuring ways to mitigate them in the future will be more valuable than finding out that the KDE spin is more popular than the GNOME spin or vice versa. And to go along with this, I expect that we'll find lots of pain points if we do this. So we need to be prepared to deal with them expeditiously when they crop up (otherwise meeting our 6 month timetable will be hard) and at the same time revist any of the solutions that are contentious once we have time after the release. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 19:43:33 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <20091008193615.GE513@clingman.lan> References: <20091008193615.GE513@clingman.lan> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > I like the daring of this plan. I think it has the potential to improve > Fedora quite a lot. However, I think it has more potential to improve > Fedora through finding all the points of failure when we do this than in > having a rousing success. For instance, GNOME and KDE use several of the > same libraries under the hood. What conflicts does this cause if we have > to/have to not upgrade a library due to version conflicts? Finding those > sorts of pain points and figuring ways to mitigate them in the future will > be more valuable than finding out that the KDE spin is more popular than the > GNOME spin or vice versa. > I wasn't concerned with popularity - just how well things would function > And to go along with this, I expect that we'll find lots of pain points if > we do this. So we need to be prepared to deal with them expeditiously when > they crop up (otherwise meeting our 6 month timetable will be hard) and at > the same time revist any of the solutions that are contentious once we have > time after the release. the pain points are exactly why I am interested, too. We went through this process when anaconda switched away from the hdrlist and then to the various repository formats. Changing things which _should_ be interchangeable frequently points up all the ways they are not _really_ interchangeable. -sv From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 19:46:50 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:46:50 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE0E17.40402@fedoraproject.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4ACE0E17.40402@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1255031210.3656.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 12:06 -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/08/2009 10:40 AM, inode0 wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > >> Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead) > >> Looking for additional resources to do X or Y. I'd like to start > >> providing that. This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as > >> well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do > >> reporting back for various information. > > > I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are > > made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. The default > > spin keeps coming up so I guess either the board isn't happy with how > > that is working now or thinks additional guidance is needed by those > > creating it currently? To help alleviate new user/contributor > > confusion about what Fedora is? > > Knowing what Fedora (or just the default spin) is meant to be and who is > it for is really essential for the design team to produce top-notch > designs and artwork in a productive and efficient manner. > > E.g., the redesign work we've been doing on the fedoraproject.org > website [1] at times has been pretty stressful because there are at > least 2 main and oppositional views on what Fedora is and who is it for, > and people from the different camps give (at times exceedingly harsh) > feedback and criticism of the designs. The problem is, there is no way a > design can satisfy one camp without seriously compromising the needs and > goals of the others. As a designer, this places me in a very > uncomfortable situation. > > The 2 views as I would summarize them are: > > - Fedora is a beautiful, usable desktop for everyone (or at least, we're > getting there.) Pandas are okay! We're ready to push to the masses. > > - Fedora is a menagerie of equal spins for highly-technical folks and > FOSS developers. Don't you dare insult our intelligence with pandas. Go > back to Sesame street. > > Don't get me started on the amount of stress the lack of answers to the > fundamental questions here have caused with respect to the Fedora > artwork & theming. :) > > The main issue from a design perspective is that if no target is > defined, then the target becomes 'everybody' - and I personally feel > it's impossible to make a top-notch, beautiful design when trying to > please everybody. You need the focus of a specific set of target users' > context to be able to make the right decisions in the design process to > come up with a good design. > > > I know I probably sound like I'm set against this business, I really > > just don't see so much of the upside to it as I think you do and I'd > > like to really understand what its purpose is intended to be. > > I hope the above explanation helps? :/ > > ~m > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Website_redesign_2009 > > _______________________________________________ I think this accurately sums up many of the conflicts we've been having over the past many years. Everything to Everybody == failure. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jamatos at fc.up.pt Thu Oct 8 19:48:04 2009 From: jamatos at fc.up.pt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Jos=E9_Matos?=) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:48:04 +0100 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE3DB8.107@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE3DB8.107@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200910082048.04253.jamatos@fc.up.pt> On Thursday 08 October 2009 Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > And it is not because it ensures you have a "great experience". It is to > prevent you from killing other people. Thankfully, we have no such > problem with Fedora. Not yet, you mean. ;-) I know that this is a serious discussion but on a relief note I would like to note that Fedora is already used to control robots so since from there to the Terminator scenario goes a little step... you should be careful with your statements. :-) > ~spot -- Jos? Ab?lio From ajax at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 19:54:36 2009 From: ajax at redhat.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:54:36 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 14:33 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of > some irc-discussions: > > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest > the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. > > It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. > And users reinstalling are reinstalling. > > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it will > test how well our processes work. The fallacy here is the implication that any given Fedora spin is equivalent to an unqualified "Fedora". Besides that, empirically, this just isn't true, I think it's detrimental to the project to completely abdicate content definition to the user. This isn't just about having an "I don't care, pick one" button, it's about making sure that the thing you get when clicking that button is both consistent year to year and the best experience we can offer. I have trouble thinking of a way that randomizing the desktop selection every release would make a user's life better. - ajax -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 20:04:40 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Adam Jackson wrote: > The fallacy here is the implication that any given Fedora spin is > equivalent to an unqualified "Fedora". It's not? I thought all fedora spins had to be 'fedora'. And why is the kde or xfce spin necessarily less 'fedora' than any other? Isn't it that way by the decision of the board? > Besides that, empirically, this just isn't true, I think it's > detrimental to the project to completely abdicate content definition to > the user. This isn't just about having an "I don't care, pick one" > button, it's about making sure that the thing you get when clicking that > button is both consistent year to year and the best experience we can > offer. So in terms of our priorities consistency is where versus making sure our spins are offering features and functionality to our users? > > I have trouble thinking of a way that randomizing the desktop selection > every release would make a user's life better. I don't think anyone suggested randomizing it. -sv From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 20:05:36 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:05:36 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091008200535.GA3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> This is probably a bit late to the discussion, but wanted to get my thoughts down before I started chiming in on everyone else's... John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: > (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe > narrow the definition to "default spin")--without a clear target > audience for our product there is a lack of clarity around when we > are "done." It also makes it difficult to make decisions about > release quality and release composition. So... we have multiple pieces here. Fedora, the entire collection of packages. (This could be considered the Distribution). These can have one target audience. Fedora, a spin, or all the spins we provide. (This also could be considered the Distribution). These can have different target audiences, which may be different from the audience of the collection of packages as a whole. For example, the Games spin and the Electronics Lab spin have different audiences, and that should not be a problem. My feeling is that, if we were to use some sort of mission statement to describe it, Fedora's essence should be 'innovation made usable'. We want to present the newest innovations to users, but not so new that they don't work. And we want to be focused on making it just work, so they don't have to run 500 arcane commands, cut and paste config snippets from the web, or jump through other hoops just to use that innovation. Nor do we want to be pushing new innovation to them so fast that they can't keep up with it, or find that their way of doing things changes from week to week during a release. We also want to grow the base of users, as that's where our contributors come from, whether they be coders, documentors, artists, support staff on the forums, or whatever. Applying this to 'the Distribution'? I think we want to do two things: 1) put our best foot foward 2) innovate around the edges What does that mean? We should have a single default spin/release/whatever that puts our best foot forward for a specific use case, allowing us to attract more people to Fedora, some portion of which will then join the project as contributors. In order to be able to sanely grow the community around it, that default should be somewhat fixed - what the default is shouldn't be changing from release to release. As for 'target user'... the stock answer is the computer-literate user who wants a coherent, easy-to-use system that doesn't get in their way. We don't necessarily want to target all the way down to the user who's never used a computer before, but I think attempting to target only those who have Linux experience, or are already tinkerers, is too limiting. I feel this default should be something like the desktop spin; a clean interface targeted at a wide variety of users that can be easily extended for a large number of use cases. For example, a user can start with the desktop, and easily add a package or three to address the 'graphics designer' use case. Or add a few packages to address the 'developer' use case. It doesn't necesarily scale down to the server use case, but I think that's one case where we don't need the extra marketing; those in the server business are more famailiar with the Fedora Family Of Distributions, and don't necessarily need to be targeted in that way. But we also want to allow innovation around the edges - if this desktop doesn't hit the use case that someone wants to address, or someone wants to extend it into something more specific, we want to allow that. That's why we allow the wide variety of packages into Fedora, and allow for things like the Spins process and the Remix idea to target other use cases that we may not target in the default Fedora spin/distribution/whatchamacallit. That being said, when the objectives come into conflict between these usage cases, we should go back to the default spin/focus as the tiebreaker. You'll note this description doesn't really harp on project directives such as 'the Fedora Project consistently seeks to create, improve, and spread free/libre code and content.' That's somewhat intentional - while I don't want to *change* that focus, and that certainly should drive technical decisions where necessary, I don't think that's necessarily the best point to drive the target user around. To go back to the old free beer/free speech analogy - you bring the users in with free beer, and *then* you get them with the free speech. If we do our job right in creating the user experience for our users, the fact that it's all open source may not even be noticeable to them if they're not looking for it. > (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distribution > to look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. > What should those be? - I'd like the produced images to be: - the default Fedora distribution as described above (could be a LiveCD spin) - the netinst/rescue iso - the spins Without a specific target audience, the current Fedora tree should go. - I'd like there to be a standard set of distribution tests so that when we compose a new livecd/spin/tree, we can, in an automated fashion, get a large variety of results quickly as to how well it works - I'd like 'israwidebroken.com' to resoundingly respond 'no' 95% of the time. > (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Fedora Project > to look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. > What should those be? - Metrics wise, an increase in contributors (hopefully across the board) - Development-wise, more actual development discussion on the devel list; patches, code review, feature proposals/discussion, etc. - An increase in task-focused spins. Right now, the focus of many of our spins appears to be i-want-a-desktop-too-but-not-that-desktop, which doesn't necessarily expand the use cases that people can hit with Fedora as much. > (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed > by the release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a > better product or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What > should those things be? These are more towards 'better product'. - QA QA QA. AutoQA doing automated tests, AutoQA mailing those test results to developers for review, AutoQA using those tests to block packages where necessary, AutoQA using those tests to promote packages where necessary. A database of past test results so we know what broke, when. - Defined policy around updating and maintaining released distributions. Not being able to concisely explain what sort of updates you get is a problem. - Set up a mechanism where large changes can be built in koji, set up as a repo, and tested sanely before being merged, ideally as a self-serve mechanism. That's not five, but if we get that far, we can come up with more. Bill From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 20:09:03 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:09:03 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE2198.4070505@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1255032543.3656.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 12:37 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > I don't think spins are nearly as different as we think they are. They really can't be outside of "different mixes of the software that exists in Fedora". -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 20:18:50 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:18:50 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE28BB.4000803@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> <4ACE28BB.4000803@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <1255033130.3656.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 14:00 -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > I don't know that any of this really changes the ingredients we've got, > just the recipe we're making with them. And I think the vision is the > recipe we need to decide on. > > FWIW I really like either 1 or 2. 2 is probably more appropriate for us as a project, 1 should be more of the page for our Desktop (or default) spin. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mclasen at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 20:23:25 2009 From: mclasen at redhat.com (Matthias Clasen) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:23:25 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255029841.1795.2.camel@planemask> Message-ID: <1255033405.1795.5.camel@planemask> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 15:27 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > >> thoughts? > > > > What a great idea. Lets also switch to zypper for that release. The yum > > developers can just keep doing whatever they are doing... > > > > Deal ? > > I suggested the desktop spin default change b/c it already exists. No code > has to be modified to go from the gnome livecd being presented to the kde > livecd being presented as default. PackageKit has a zypper backend, and the Davids original live cd work installed without anaconda being involved. If we are serious about this, replacing yum by F14 should be very doable. As you said, things should be interchangeable. From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 20:28:52 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:28:52 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <1255033405.1795.5.camel@planemask> References: <1255029841.1795.2.camel@planemask> <1255033405.1795.5.camel@planemask> Message-ID: <4ACE4B84.50302@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 04:23 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 15:27 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > >>>> thoughts? >>> >>> What a great idea. Lets also switch to zypper for that release. The yum >>> developers can just keep doing whatever they are doing... >>> >>> Deal ? >> >> I suggested the desktop spin default change b/c it already exists. No code >> has to be modified to go from the gnome livecd being presented to the kde >> livecd being presented as default. > > PackageKit has a zypper backend, and the Davids original live cd work > installed without anaconda being involved. If we are serious about this, > replacing yum by F14 should be very doable. As you said, things should > be interchangeable. I'm unaware of an existing approved Fedora spin configured thusly, so, I'm not sure how it relates, other than to be snarky. ~spot From caillon at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 20:31:22 2009 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:31:22 -0400 Subject: We can't target any user without fixing these 5 things Message-ID: <4ACE4C1A.5050803@redhat.com> (hm, apparently my VPN connection died on the plane when I thought I had sent this last Saturday...) I think perhaps the single largest issue we have is a lack of reliability/predictability during a Fedora release stream (e.g. post-release updates, rawhide). It's great that we have predictable schedules, and that we have predictable feature sets. What sucks is that nobody knows how well those feature sets will work, and just as importantly, nobody knows what types of package updates (wrt ABI compat, rebases, etc) to expect in the Fedora update streams. Things which work on release day may break later on due to some packages getting de-stabilizing updates, some not. We ask maintainers to use their judgement, and when people complain, we explain that we don't control it, and it's up to the maintainer. This clearly does not work as this is a frequent topic of contention on various mailing lists, and is not really beneficial to any class of user. Additionally, nobody knows whether rawhide on any given day will be usable, and it still has a negative stigma attached to it: some engineers who provide rawhide packages don't even use rawhide, which is causing rawhide and thus the upcoming releases to get less testing. I do not think that we can really provide top quality software if we can't even use what we build at any given point. We are more focused with getting features in then with getting them in and having them work. We are happy to break things in rawhide and say "well, it's rawhide, i'll fix it in a few days". If we want to target Fedora for any class of user, we need to think and act for the user. Right now, we're clearly not even acting for the people that do use our distribution. I think we should fix that before we can even begin to define what our target user should be. If we can't do these five things, then I think any discussion involving target users is rather pointless, and quite honestly, we are doomed to fail, IMHO. (Note that some of these items may be best specified by e.g. FESCo, but I think they reflect a significant enough change in the way we do things that the Board should push for and stand behind these). 1. Define a list of core/critical-path functionality that packagers are required to ensure they do not break. Define a plan of action for what happens if such functionality becomes broken. See example[1]. Bonus points: come up with an easy to follow "smoketest" for how to determine whether something on the list is broken. 2. Define update criteria for our release streams: what types of updates we expect, and what types of updates we do not want in each stream. Define a plan of action for what happens if an update fails to comply. See example[2]. 3. Set up something similar to Mozilla's "Sheriffs"[3]. The Sheriff will be a rotating role and shall be responsible for coordination and enforcing of the previous two rules. If an issue arises, the sheriff will attempt to contact the packager responsible, and attempt to get them to fix or revert the issue. If this isn't possible within 15 minutes, the sheriff will find a provenpackager to do so. 4. Improve our test suites. Provide $coolstuff incentive for people who contribute (the most?) valid test cases. 5. Start an initiative to automate as much of the above as possible. Possibly as GSoC projects. Particularly, I'd like to see a tinderbox which creates VMs from a buildroot+ks file, runs automated tests for the critical path, and outputs the PASS/FAIL results. I'd also like to have a post-commit hook which reminds people to not break stuff and to be available to the sheriff on IRC. [1] Example: Core/critical-path is a system must boot up, get a display manager with XYZ video cards, be able to log in successfully, be able to get a working network via ethernet (and if available, via xyz wireless cards), have audio work on XYZ audio cards, and be able to successfully use yum/rpm/PackageKit. In the event any package breaks this functionality, the package must be fixed immediately (within 15? minutes of noticing) or the changed is reverted, package untagged and rebuilt. If N violations occur, provenpackager status is revoked. [2] Example: For rawhide, do not break dependencies without announcing in advance about why you are doing so to fedora-devel-list, and not receiving objections. For Fedora releases, updates must not break ABI or dependencies without getting an exception granted from FESCo. In the event any package fails to comply, the change is immediately reverted, and mail sent to the packager owner. If N violations occur, provenpackager status is revoked. [3] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Sheriff_Duty From caillon at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 20:39:27 2009 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:39:27 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE4DFF.1040209@redhat.com> On 10/07/2009 12:11 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2009-10-01/fedora-board-meeting.2009-10-01-16.03.log.html > > > At last week's meeting we said we would continue our discussion here. > Here I go :) > > 1) I'm still advocating that it is our responsibility to move things > forward and own these issues. Are there any board members that disagree? > Speak now or we will assume you are in agreement. :-) > 2) We really need to resolve this topic that has been on the board's > agenda since January 2009. For some of us, since we joined in July 2009. > I'm proposing that we set a hard deadline of "the end of FUDCon." This > means that by the time we leave FUDCon the first part of December 2009, > this issue will be officially closed and off our agenda until there is a > reason to revisit it and we can start 2010 with a clean slate. Are there > any board members who would not be able to commit to this goal? I thought we were already commited and on our way to getting there, tbh... > 3) I am proposing a few unanswered questions that must be answered to > bring greater clarity to why Fedora exists and what it seeks to > accomplish which will allow us to close this issue. I'd wager that > answering these questions will require each of us to sit down and spend > some time thinking about them vs. replying in 5 minutes to this email. > Naturally we'd also love feedback from everyone on this list. > > (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe > narrow the definition to "default spin")--without a clear target > audience for our product there is a lack of clarity around when we are > "done." It also makes it difficult to make decisions about release > quality and release composition. Didn't we answer this already and give it to the websites and art teams to implement? > (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed by > the release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a better > product or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What should those > things be? I sent my 5 things out in a different thread Saturday, ergg.., just now.. seems it didn't go through initially. :( From caillon at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 20:45:13 2009 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:45:13 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE28BB.4000803@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> <4ACE28BB.4000803@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4ACE4F59.1060501@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 02:00 PM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > The resulting strategy would be a default Desktop or Simple Fedora spin > being productized as the *Fedora* itself. You go to the website, perhaps > not fedoraproject.org, maybe something like fedoralinux.org or > getfedora.org or fedoraos.org, and you see a site solely focused on > extolling the virtues of using Fedora, obtaining Fedora, and getting > help with using Fedora. The platform and community get branded as 'the > Fedora community' or 'the Fedora Project' and are no longer branded as > being Fedora itself. There's a website likely fedoraproject.org (but > maybe based on Fedora Community) geared far more towards joining the > project, starting a new group or project, finding tasks to work on to > help out, filing bugs, etc. etc. etc. This is essentially a condensed version of what I had proposed to the rest of the Board in a meeting leading up to the current push for the redesigned spins page. I still strongly feel we should do something like this and that the redesign is a right step, and gets closer but doesn't completely solve the issues. From caillon at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 20:51:20 2009 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:51:20 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4ACE50C8.9000905@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 02:54 PM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/08/2009 02:38 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: >> I'm in the view we cannot please everyone all the time. My experiences on >> this earth have lead me to believe that is impossible without an infinite >> amount of resources. So we have to pick otherwise we have the mob rule we >> have now. You're right, our software isn't designed for non-technical >> folks. The question is, should it be? >> >> Where we're left is no hope of building a prius. The larger tires and >> roll cage being designed by some engineers just won't work with the >> smaller more gas efficient engine our other engineers are designing. > > If we focus on highly-technical users, which is a totally valid path, > can we achieve our goals as a project? Great question, actually. I don't believe we can, tbh. Highly technical users already know the benefits of FOSS. We don't really need to promote it to them, they already use FOSS in some manner, most likely. We'd essentially be competing against other distros for their love. We need to show people that FOSS can be just as viable for them to use as commercial software, and to that end, we need to show that to less technical users, IMHO for FOSS to really become a truly viable choice. From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 8 20:49:06 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:49:06 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4ACE5042.2020406@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/08/2009 03:07 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Striving to lead not follow. > > Seeks to create, improve, and spread free/libre code and content > > Succeed through shared action on the part of the community. > > All of that stuff, to me, sounds like things my wife has no interest in > but stuff experienced users would be very interested in. The mission isn't for your wife though, it's for Fedora. E.g., if our mission is to spread free/libre code and content, an effective way of doing that is to get it into as many new people's hands as possible. With developers as a user base it could be argued that many have already bought into FOSS so we're not spreading or gaining new ground there but against other distros, which isn't spreading FOSS in general at all. ~m From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:02:30 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:02:30 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091008210228.GC3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > * ...expects things to "just work" as much as possible, and can > sometimes be impatient as a result. > * ...doesn't want to go back to $OTHER_OS, and is therefore willing to > fiddle occasionally -- on the order of 10-15 minutes or less per > month -- to avoid it. > * ...accepts that software freedom has certain limitations, but wants > to minimize (and if possible eliminate) any difference in > capabilities vs. $OTHER_OS. ... here's where I wonder. Do we gain a large base by promoting the free software aspect up front, or by giving them something that just works and hits their needs, and showing them that it was free software that did it later? Bill From caillon at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:03:38 2009 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:03:38 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE39E8.3090209@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE53AA.20507@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 03:17 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > We can advance the whole Linux field faster if we're not so focused on > people that have expressed an interest in not using our software. Let us > innovate, let the other distros polish and customize as they see fit. No, that would advance Fedora's brand of Linux. It would do nothing to bring more people to the total FOSS/Linux count, we'd just be shuffling people around from distro to distro. Mozilla has made great strides in getting people to convert from proprietary software to free software by giving people an alternative which works just as well or better than the proprietary software for what people use it for. If we are truly committed to advancing FOSS, we need to do the same as best as we can. We need to do the things that people use an OS for as well or better than the other OSes people use. There are many features of other OSes that aren't frequently used by people. If we get the big use cases, chances are we'll get help with the rest. From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:08:21 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:08:21 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE1FB6.60209@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4ACE1FB6.60209@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091008210821.GD3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: > I had hoped to spend my time answering the original questions I > posed, but instead spent it reading the other posts and trying to > write some thoughtful replies which always take me too long :-/ I > plan to reply to my original questions by the end of tomorrow > (2009-10-09), hopefully earlier. > > I don't agree that it is fine that a number of board members have > remained silent. I believe we have been elected and appointed with > an obligation to participate. I recognize and respect that everyone > has busy lives. I also believe that if other things get in the way > we have an obligation to let others know or step down so others can > get involved. > > I think we should hear from everyone and that the position of each > board member should be made clear. Maybe some have been silent > because they think the way this are currently is fine. If that is > the case, they should say that and motion that we drop this topic > from future agendas. Perhaps they are in the same boat as you were. I know that actually attempting to *schedule* out an hour of time or so to write up a lengthy response is problematic with other meetings and beta fires; it's why I haven't responded to (or even read much of) the thread until this afternoon. Bill From ajax at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:10:16 2009 From: ajax at redhat.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:10:16 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:04 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Adam Jackson wrote: > > The fallacy here is the implication that any given Fedora spin is > > equivalent to an unqualified "Fedora". > > It's not? I thought all fedora spins had to be 'fedora'. And why is the > kde or xfce spin necessarily less 'fedora' than any other? Isn't it that > way by the decision of the board? They have to be Fedora in that they have to be composed from bits that are in Fedora CVS, sure. If you're trying to get me to say that some spins are more equal than others: some spins are more equal than others. I think that's manifest from history, and from the amount of developer effort present in the various spins. I think that explicit acknowledgement of this is a positive thing for the distribution and the project. Which is actually a series of points that deserve explicit awareness: - there's a fedora project, and a fedora distribution - unqualified "fedora" means the default spin of the distro - the default distro is the primary artifact of the project - changes to the project are not done in a vacuum, and are evaluated on their benefit to the default distro > > Besides that, empirically, this just isn't true, I think it's > > detrimental to the project to completely abdicate content definition to > > the user. This isn't just about having an "I don't care, pick one" > > button, it's about making sure that the thing you get when clicking that > > button is both consistent year to year and the best experience we can > > offer. > > So in terms of our priorities consistency is where versus making sure our > spins are offering features and functionality to our users? I'm unable to answer this question. It's phrased as a dichotomy, where I don't think that's the right model. > > I have trouble thinking of a way that randomizing the desktop selection > > every release would make a user's life better. > > I don't think anyone suggested randomizing it. Fair, that's merely me extending the proposal. But either you're going to change it at least twice, or you're (effectively) changing the default distro. Either way, while I can see potential (albeit minor) benefit to the proposal in relation to the project, I don't see any way it's positive for the distro. - ajax -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:10:39 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:10:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE53AA.20507@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE39E8.3090209@redhat.com> <4ACE53AA.20507@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Christopher Aillon wrote: > On 10/08/2009 03:17 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > We can advance the whole Linux field faster if we're not so focused on > > people that have expressed an interest in not using our software. Let us > > innovate, let the other distros polish and customize as they see fit. > > No, that would advance Fedora's brand of Linux. It would do nothing to bring > more people to the total FOSS/Linux count, we'd just be shuffling people > around from distro to distro. > You've incorrectly assumed that all Linux distros are the same. People go to the one that best fits their needs. I've watched this first hand 2 weeks ago. > Mozilla has made great strides in getting people to convert from proprietary > software to free software by giving people an alternative which works just as > well or better than the proprietary software for what people use it for. > There's not multiple mozillas to choose from. Besides, Ubuntu has made greater strides then us in this fashion. Why not let them do what they've proved themselves to be good at and let us do what we have prover ourselves to be good at (innovation). > If we are truly committed to advancing FOSS, we need to do the same as best as > we can. > 'advancing FOSS' could mean getting more people to use FOSS, or advancing the technologies in FOSS. I read it to mean the latter. I suspect others mean it to mean the former. -Mike From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:16:21 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:16:21 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091008211620.GE3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Mike McGrath (mmcgrath at redhat.com) said: > Do you really think Fedora's values are everyones values and the only > problems here are related to QA and usability? So, there's a value we state on that page of: - "helping drive innovation of OSS" As a user, their 'value' might be: - "I want to read my mail, browse the web, and write documents without dealing with crashes or viruses." Are these values the same? No. Do these values *conflict*? No. It's why I also feel that page is pretty wrong in concept and execution. Bill From caillon at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:20:05 2009 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:20:05 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091008210228.GC3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008210228.GC3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE5785.8020108@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 05:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: >> * ...expects things to "just work" as much as possible, and can >> sometimes be impatient as a result. >> * ...doesn't want to go back to $OTHER_OS, and is therefore willing to >> fiddle occasionally -- on the order of 10-15 minutes or less per >> month -- to avoid it. >> * ...accepts that software freedom has certain limitations, but wants >> to minimize (and if possible eliminate) any difference in >> capabilities vs. $OTHER_OS. > > ... here's where I wonder. Do we gain a large base by promoting the > free software aspect up front, or by giving them something that just > works and hits their needs, and showing them that it was free software > that did it later? I think the latter. But I don't think we necessarily need to hammer it home to the end user. Keep in mind that we want to also promote FOSS to developers who would be otherwise developing proprietary software. If they see FOSS getting a large user base, and decide to go FOSS instead of commercial, I think we're succeeding in our mission. From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:22:25 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:22:25 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <1255032543.3656.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE2198.4070505@redhat.com> <1255032543.3656.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091008212224.GF3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: > > I don't think spins are nearly as different as we think they are. > > They really can't be outside of "different mixes of the software that > exists in Fedora". Do we want to enable them to be? I can see where this would allow them a little more latitude in making some changes... while also exploding the test matrix. Bill From a.badger at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 21:25:14 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:25:14 -0700 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <1255033405.1795.5.camel@planemask> References: <1255029841.1795.2.camel@planemask> <1255033405.1795.5.camel@planemask> Message-ID: <20091008212412.GA1240@clingman.lan> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 04:23:25PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 15:27 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > >> thoughts? > > > > > > What a great idea. Lets also switch to zypper for that release. The yum > > > developers can just keep doing whatever they are doing... > > > > > > Deal ? > > > > I suggested the desktop spin default change b/c it already exists. No code > > has to be modified to go from the gnome livecd being presented to the kde > > livecd being presented as default. > > PackageKit has a zypper backend, and the Davids original live cd work > installed without anaconda being involved. If we are serious about this, > replacing yum by F14 should be very doable. As you said, things should > be interchangeable. > Actually, the only place where Seth mentions interchangable in this thread is: """ Changing things which _should_ be interchangeable frequently points up all the ways they are not _really_ interchangeable. """ https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-October/msg00090.html So there's an unspoken assumption "Since the board defines which spin is the default spin", that either spins should be interchangable or at least some of them should be interchangable. Perhaps that isn't correct? I can't recall a statement by the board to that effect although I do recall individual board members saying that you should be able to trade out the fedora desktop spin for the kde spin even though we don't. zypper vs yum, OTOH, I don't even have a recollection of a board member saying as themselves that the package managers in Fedora should be interchangable. If that is the case, we should have a list of the features that we must make sure that each package manager supports and start testing them. I remember multilib was a problem for some package managers and file dependencies a problem for others in the past. We'll need to get each of the supported package managers up to snuff if we really have a goal of making our package management interchangable. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caillon at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:29:34 2009 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:29:34 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 05:10 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:04 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Adam Jackson wrote: >>> The fallacy here is the implication that any given Fedora spin is >>> equivalent to an unqualified "Fedora". >> >> It's not? I thought all fedora spins had to be 'fedora'. And why is the >> kde or xfce spin necessarily less 'fedora' than any other? Isn't it that >> way by the decision of the board? > > They have to be Fedora in that they have to be composed from bits that > are in Fedora CVS, sure. > > If you're trying to get me to say that some spins are more equal than > others: some spins are more equal than others.I think that's manifest > from history, and from the amount of developer effort present in the > various spins. I think that explicit acknowledgement of this is a > positive thing for the distribution and the project. The Board has already acknowledged this when we made the desktop spin the default. We cited pretty much every point you made; both proposals that were brought to the table (one by Spot and one by myself) explicitly mentioned all those points). I think we should bring back codeina so we'd have something to do other than keep answering the same questions over and over in different ways... From ajax at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:40:38 2009 From: ajax at redhat.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:40:38 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1255038038.11711.2137.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:29 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > On 10/08/2009 05:10 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:04 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Adam Jackson wrote: > >>> The fallacy here is the implication that any given Fedora spin is > >>> equivalent to an unqualified "Fedora". > >> > >> It's not? I thought all fedora spins had to be 'fedora'. And why is the > >> kde or xfce spin necessarily less 'fedora' than any other? Isn't it that > >> way by the decision of the board? > > > > They have to be Fedora in that they have to be composed from bits that > > are in Fedora CVS, sure. > > > > If you're trying to get me to say that some spins are more equal than > > others: some spins are more equal than others.I think that's manifest > > from history, and from the amount of developer effort present in the > > various spins. I think that explicit acknowledgement of this is a > > positive thing for the distribution and the project. > > The Board has already acknowledged this when we made the desktop spin > the default. We cited pretty much every point you made; both proposals > that were brought to the table (one by Spot and one by myself) > explicitly mentioned all those points). I was pretty sure you had, yeah. - ajax -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mclasen at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 21:39:14 2009 From: mclasen at redhat.com (Matthias Clasen) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:39:14 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <20091008212412.GA1240@clingman.lan> References: <1255029841.1795.2.camel@planemask> <1255033405.1795.5.camel@planemask> <20091008212412.GA1240@clingman.lan> Message-ID: <1255037954.1795.8.camel@planemask> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 14:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > """ > Changing things which _should_ be interchangeable frequently points up all > the ways they are not _really_ interchangeable. > """ > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-October/msg00090.html > > So there's an unspoken assumption "Since the board defines which spin is > the default spin", that either spins should be interchangable or at least > some of them should be interchangable. Perhaps that isn't correct? I can't > recall a statement by the board to that effect although I do recall > individual board members saying that you should be able to trade out the > fedora desktop spin for the kde spin even though we don't. > > zypper vs yum, OTOH, I don't even have a recollection of a board member > saying as themselves that the package managers in Fedora should be > interchangable. If that is the case, we should have a list of the features > that we must make sure that each package manager supports and start testing > them. I remember multilib was a problem for some package managers and file > dependencies a problem for others in the past. We'll need to get each of > the supported package managers up to snuff if we really have a goal of > making our package management interchangable. The point I'm trying to get across is that 1) We had a very hard time just changing the default im client, with people being worried about regressions etc 2) When I propose to change the package manager backend, you tell me that its hard and we need feature lists and comparisons and whatnot Yet, changing the default spin is supposed to be easy, just because the board declared them to be interchangeable ? I guess it is obvious that I don't think they are interchangeable at all, nor should they. Just like you don't think that package managers are interchangeable. Anyway, last mail from me on this side show. From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 21:47:50 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:47:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Christopher Aillon wrote: > > The Board has already acknowledged this when we made the desktop spin the > default. We cited pretty much every point you made; both proposals that were > brought to the table (one by Spot and one by myself) explicitly mentioned all > those points). > The discussion from today has shown that we believe the spins to be a way of fitting anyone's needs into fedora. To allowing everyone to be involved and get what they want out of fedora. I asked this question about the default spin being changed to xfce or kde to point out that if our spins are equal among themselves - especially the desktop-oriented ones - then we should choose a different default spin for a release to see how that goes. If, as you're saying, that the spins process is not about equals then why do we keep pointing to it as a solution when someone wants to do something else? I don't think it can be both ways at the same time. -sv From pbrobinson at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 21:51:40 2009 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:51:40 +0100 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5256d0b0910081451l3b53765fmcbc8567a0823a8e3@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Dimitris Glezos wrote: >> >> I'd encourage people who would like to see Fedora go to a different >> direction to actually COME UP WITH A PLAN for it, and start >> implementing it. They'll have my full support, in all levels. In this >> sense, I disagree with folks who draw lines saying "we shouldn't do >> this" -- and I've expressed this opinion in all levels too. We should >> encourage people to try different things and CHANGE the Fedora goals. >> If the community follows, the Board will follow, because it's an organ >> by and for the Community. >> > > So in Infrastructure, should we be focusing on the search engine so new > inexperienced users can more easily find answers to questions through our > various docs via keywords and things we define? An improved search would be nice as even as an advanced user I still have problems finding articles that I know are in the wiki! :-) Peter From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 8 21:56:50 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:56:50 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE6022.5000706@linuxgrrl.com> Hi Seth! On 10/08/2009 05:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > The discussion from today has shown that we believe the spins to be a > way of fitting anyone's needs into fedora. To allowing everyone to be > involved and get what they want out of fedora. I asked this question > about the default spin being changed to xfce or kde to point out that if > our spins are equal among themselves - especially the desktop-oriented > ones - then we should choose a different default spin for a release to > see how that goes. > > If, as you're saying, that the spins process is not about equals then > why do we keep pointing to it as a solution when someone wants to do > something else? > > I don't think it can be both ways at the same time. Why do you think that? If I understand correctly you're saying the spins must be equals for the spins community to effectively serve as a place for folks to try new/different things? I don't follow the logic. E.g., I kind of see the spins community as a way of giving folks the freedom to innovate and try new/different things (maybe as a proving ground at times) without disrupting the main/default spin. ~m From pbrobinson at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 22:06:41 2009 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 23:06:41 +0100 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE2198.4070505@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE2198.4070505@redhat.com> Message-ID: <5256d0b0910081506v57510e69ic3ef59e484915bc8@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/08/2009 01:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> We've been over this OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, Tom. When we had the >> FAD in RDU back in the summer you even conceded the point >> that you cannot develop for EVERYONE all at once. I believe it was >> Notting's point. > > *sigh* Let me try to be succinct. > > * Simply because Fedora may not have a spin that is currently a good fit > for some users does not mean that we will never have a spin that is a > good fit for them. By making blanket declarations such as "Fedora is for > experienced users", we prevent growth and we turn away users. > > I am not opposed to letting the SIGs that are responsible for the Fedora > Spins decide who their target users are. I am opposed to the Fedora > Board excluding any possibility of a Spin targeting a large subset of > users, be it new users, Spanish speaking users, blind users, or women. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Fedora is dynamic and that's why it works so well. That's why I can install it on a 128 processor NUMA box with a TB of RAM at work and use it on my NetBook with Moblin, my XO with Sugar and my NAS box. The core Fedora is like a piece of clay that allows people to mould it any way they would like. In the process of helping get all the OLPC changes upstream and working towards Moblin I've found that my interests in small and slim OS installs stripped of a lot stuff is actually very similar to the goals of some of the server stuff for things like JeOS that the Virt and appliance teams are interested in. That's what I love about Fedora..... its there to make of it what ever you want to make of it. I want to see Fedora running on everything from Phones to super computing clusters! If we're losing users we have to ask why? Or work out why. I'm often wondered why Dell uses Ubuntu on their desktops/laptops over Ubuntu. Is it because we don't ship proprietary drivers? Is it because we don't ship mp3 codecs. I personally think we're mostly a better fit because with things like NetworkManager we've had support for things like plug and play 3G modems alot longer. Peter From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 22:09:30 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:09:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <4ACE6022.5000706@linuxgrrl.com> References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> <4ACE6022.5000706@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hi Seth! > > On 10/08/2009 05:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> The discussion from today has shown that we believe the spins to be a >> way of fitting anyone's needs into fedora. To allowing everyone to be >> involved and get what they want out of fedora. I asked this question >> about the default spin being changed to xfce or kde to point out that if >> our spins are equal among themselves - especially the desktop-oriented >> ones - then we should choose a different default spin for a release to >> see how that goes. >> >> If, as you're saying, that the spins process is not about equals then >> why do we keep pointing to it as a solution when someone wants to do >> something else? >> >> I don't think it can be both ways at the same time. > > Why do you think that? If I understand correctly you're saying the spins must > be equals for the spins community to effectively serve as a place for folks > to try new/different things? I don't follow the logic. > > E.g., I kind of see the spins community as a way of giving folks the freedom > to innovate and try new/different things (maybe as a proving ground at times) > without disrupting the main/default spin. Weird. I thought Fedora was about having the freedom to innovate and try new/different things on the leading edge. -sv From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 22:25:12 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:25:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <4ACE6022.5000706@linuxgrrl.com> References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> <4ACE6022.5000706@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hi Seth! > > > Why do you think that? If I understand correctly you're saying the spins must > be equals for the spins community to effectively serve as a place for folks > to try new/different things? I don't follow the logic. I wanted to note one other thing. I'm not talking about the generalities of all spins. But specifically the xfce and kde spins. -sv From caillon at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 22:38:38 2009 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:38:38 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> <4ACE6022.5000706@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4ACE69EE.6090902@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 06:09 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > Weird. I thought Fedora was about having the freedom to innovate and try > new/different things on the leading edge. Note the "leading." The Desktop SIG has more contributors and those guys also are leading on the more distro-wide things such as NetworkManager, ConsoleKit, DeviceKit, PackageKit, PulseAudio, thusnelda, etc. Which is why the Board said the default spin should be the desktop (GNOME) spin. The situation has not changed in the past few weeks so I don't think it warrants reconsideration. From caillon at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 22:42:08 2009 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:42:08 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <4ACE69EE.6090902@redhat.com> References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> <4ACE6022.5000706@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE69EE.6090902@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACE6AC0.6000606@redhat.com> On 10/08/2009 06:38 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote: > On 10/08/2009 06:09 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> Weird. I thought Fedora was about having the freedom to innovate and try >> new/different things on the leading edge. > > Note the "leading." > > The Desktop SIG has more contributors and those guys also are leading on > the more distro-wide things such as NetworkManager, ConsoleKit, > DeviceKit, PackageKit, PulseAudio, thusnelda, etc. Which is why the > Board said the default spin should be the desktop (GNOME) spin. The > situation has not changed in the past few weeks so I don't think it > warrants reconsideration. And I haven't seen any evidence to suggest it will change by Fedora 14, either. From william.jon.mccann at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 23:05:41 2009 From: william.jon.mccann at gmail.com (William Jon McCann) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:05:41 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091008210228.GC3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008210228.GC3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <939dd5750910081605l4cc255c8mfb2c9c786f43c481@mail.gmail.com> Hi Bill, Unfortunately I don't have time to reply substantively to this thread for at least a few more days. But wanted to quickly to respond to this. On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: >> * ...expects things to "just work" as much as possible, and can >> ? sometimes be impatient as a result. >> * ...doesn't want to go back to $OTHER_OS, and is therefore willing to >> ? fiddle occasionally -- on the order of 10-15 minutes or less per >> ? month -- to avoid it. >> * ...accepts that software freedom has certain limitations, but wants >> ? to minimize (and if possible eliminate) any difference in >> ? capabilities vs. $OTHER_OS. > > ... here's where I wonder. Do we gain a large base by promoting the > free software aspect up front, or by giving them something that just > works and hits their needs, and showing them that it was free software > that did it later? This is a very important question to ask. The thing that we sometimes lose track of is that Free Software and Open Source are implementation details - methodologies - or even sometimes mythologies. Granted, these are details that are fundamentally important to us. But they don't mean a darn thing to most people who just want something that makes life a bit better, easier, or more fun. We are pretty sure that given enough time people will realize the importance, and that over time we will produce something better, easier, and more fun. However, we have to prove it. We can't expect that people will want to use Fedora "because they ought to." That is just nonsense and, frankly, pretty insulting. Right now we still have faith that we *can* be better - only trouble is how to actually be better. Positioning Fedora as the most Free distribution is clearly not enough. I am sad to see every attempt to answer fundamental questions about what Fedora is all about derailed by this idea. Great, we're the idealest idealists - now what? I'm also pretty sad that every conversation about what we're designing gets derailed by the newbie vs. expert debate. This false dilemma is a waste of time. I see plenty of first-computer-grandpas and uber-nerds using both OS X and Windows. Also, the way the question "What is the Fedora Project?" is framed is pretty leading don't you think? Another wacky thing I've seen in this thread is the idea of conceding to Ubuntu. Though, ironically, it is in fact already happening while we discuss this issue once again. Might be worth considering how Ubuntu was largely borne out of the failures of Fedora. What are they doing right? What are we doing wrong? How can we improve? There is very little time to continue to be defensive. It is time to confront the brutal facts - we're losing (badly). Jon PS. Hopefully I'll have time after the GNOME Summit to contribute more to this discussion... From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 8 23:13:21 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:13:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <939dd5750910081605l4cc255c8mfb2c9c786f43c481@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008210228.GC3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <939dd5750910081605l4cc255c8mfb2c9c786f43c481@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, William Jon McCann wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Unfortunately I don't have time to reply substantively to this thread > for at least a few more days. But wanted to quickly to respond to > this. > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Paul W. Frields (stickster at gmail.com) said: > >> * ...expects things to "just work" as much as possible, and can > >> ? sometimes be impatient as a result. > >> * ...doesn't want to go back to $OTHER_OS, and is therefore willing to > >> ? fiddle occasionally -- on the order of 10-15 minutes or less per > >> ? month -- to avoid it. > >> * ...accepts that software freedom has certain limitations, but wants > >> ? to minimize (and if possible eliminate) any difference in > >> ? capabilities vs. $OTHER_OS. > > > > ... here's where I wonder. Do we gain a large base by promoting the > > free software aspect up front, or by giving them something that just > > works and hits their needs, and showing them that it was free software > > that did it later? > > This is a very important question to ask. The thing that we sometimes > lose track of is that Free Software and Open Source are implementation > details - methodologies - or even sometimes mythologies. Granted, > these are details that are fundamentally important to us. But they > don't mean a darn thing to most people who just want something that > makes life a bit better, easier, or more fun. We are pretty sure that > given enough time people will realize the importance, and that over > time we will produce something better, easier, and more fun. However, > we have to prove it. We can't expect that people will want to use > Fedora "because they ought to." That is just nonsense and, frankly, > pretty insulting. Right now we still have faith that we *can* be > better - only trouble is how to actually be better. > > Positioning Fedora as the most Free distribution is clearly not > enough. I am sad to see every attempt to answer fundamental questions > about what Fedora is all about derailed by this idea. Great, we're > the idealest idealists - now what? > > I'm also pretty sad that every conversation about what we're designing > gets derailed by the newbie vs. expert debate. This false dilemma is > a waste of time. I see plenty of first-computer-grandpas and > uber-nerds using both OS X and Windows. > > Also, the way the question "What is the Fedora Project?" is framed is > pretty leading don't you think? > > Another wacky thing I've seen in this thread is the idea of conceding > to Ubuntu. Though, ironically, it is in fact already happening while > we discuss this issue once again. Might be worth considering how > Ubuntu was largely borne out of the failures of Fedora. What are they > doing right? What are we doing wrong? How can we improve? There is > very little time to continue to be defensive. It is time to confront > the brutal facts - we're losing (badly). > > Jon > > PS. Hopefully I'll have time after the GNOME Summit to contribute more > to this discussion... > This is exactly what I was most afraid of. Our users think we're Ubuntu and we let them. Then they have a terrible time of it, go to Ubuntu and not only do they now use Ubuntu but also hate Fedora. If we're going to try to be Ubuntu (Linux for human beings) we can certainly do that, but it's going to take leadership to do it. Notting's response has been the only other response I've seen so far that I could look at and see how to implement. Not to oversimply what he said but it seems he wants a "Usable, general purpose desktop" If this is what the rest of the board things, then we can certainly focus our efforts that way. -Mike From william.jon.mccann at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 23:21:16 2009 From: william.jon.mccann at gmail.com (William Jon McCann) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:21:16 -0400 Subject: We can't target any user without fixing these 5 things In-Reply-To: <4ACE4C1A.5050803@redhat.com> References: <4ACE4C1A.5050803@redhat.com> Message-ID: <939dd5750910081621u2fbc2853t4dd6fc8a2017e4ba@mail.gmail.com> Hey Chris, On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote: > (hm, apparently my VPN connection died on the plane when I thought I had > sent this last Saturday...) > > I think perhaps the single largest issue we have is a lack of > reliability/predictability during a Fedora release stream (e.g. post-release > updates, rawhide). ?It's great that we have predictable schedules, and that > we have predictable feature sets. ?What sucks is that nobody knows how well > those feature sets will work, and just as importantly, nobody knows what > types of package updates (wrt ABI compat, rebases, etc) to expect in the > Fedora update streams. ?Things which work on release day may break later on > due to some packages getting de-stabilizing updates, some not. ?We ask > maintainers to use their judgement, and when people complain, we explain > that we don't control it, and it's up to the maintainer. ?This clearly does > not work as this is a frequent topic of contention on various mailing lists, > and is not really beneficial to any class of user. > > Additionally, nobody knows whether rawhide on any given day will be usable, > and it still has a negative stigma attached to it: some engineers who > provide rawhide packages don't even use rawhide, which is causing rawhide > and thus the upcoming releases to get less testing. ?I do not think that we > can really provide top quality software if we can't even use what we build > at any given point. ?We are more focused with getting features in then with > getting them in and having them work. ?We are happy to break things in > rawhide and say "well, it's rawhide, i'll fix it in a few days". > > If we want to target Fedora for any class of user, we need to think and act > for the user. ?Right now, we're clearly not even acting for the people that > do use our distribution. ?I think we should fix that before we can even > begin to define what our target user should be. ?If we can't do these five > things, then I think any discussion involving target users is rather > pointless, and quite honestly, we are doomed to fail, IMHO. (Note that some > of these items may be best specified by e.g. FESCo, but I think they reflect > a significant enough change in the way we do things that the Board should > push for and stand behind these). > > > ? 1. Define a list of core/critical-path functionality that packagers are > required to ensure they do not break. ?Define a plan of action for what > happens if such functionality becomes broken. ?See example[1]. Bonus points: > come up with an easy to follow "smoketest" for how to determine whether > something on the list is broken. > > ? 2. Define update criteria for our release streams: what types of updates > we expect, and what types of updates we do not want in each stream. ?Define > a plan of action for what happens if an update fails to comply. ?See > example[2]. > > ? 3. Set up something similar to Mozilla's "Sheriffs"[3]. ?The Sheriff will > be a rotating role and shall be responsible for coordination and enforcing > of the previous two rules. ?If an issue arises, the sheriff will attempt to > contact the packager responsible, and attempt to get them to fix or revert > the issue. ?If this isn't possible within 15 minutes, the sheriff will find > a provenpackager to do so. > > ? 4. Improve our test suites. ?Provide $coolstuff incentive for people who > contribute (the most?) valid test cases. > > ? 5. Start an initiative to automate as much of the above as possible. > ?Possibly as GSoC projects. ?Particularly, I'd like to see a tinderbox which > creates VMs from a buildroot+ks file, runs automated tests for the critical > path, and outputs the PASS/FAIL results. ?I'd also like to have a > post-commit hook which reminds people to not break stuff and to be available > to the sheriff on IRC. > > > [1] Example: Core/critical-path is a system must boot up, get a display > manager with XYZ video cards, be able to log in successfully, be able to get > a working network via ethernet (and if available, via xyz wireless cards), > have audio work on XYZ audio cards, and be able to successfully use > yum/rpm/PackageKit. ?In the event any package breaks this functionality, the > package must be fixed immediately (within 15? minutes of noticing) or the > changed is reverted, package untagged and rebuilt. If N violations occur, > provenpackager status is revoked. > > [2] Example: For rawhide, do not break dependencies without announcing in > advance about why you are doing so to fedora-devel-list, and not receiving > objections. ?For Fedora releases, updates must not break ABI or dependencies > without getting an exception granted from FESCo. ?In the event any package > fails to comply, the change is immediately reverted, and mail sent to the > packager owner. ?If N violations occur, provenpackager status is revoked. > > [3] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Sheriff_Duty Also see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience Would be great to start working on these important problems. Thanks, Jon From jwboyer at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 00:14:49 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:14:49 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091008200535.GA3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008200535.GA3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091009001449.GJ30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 04:05:36PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distribution >> to look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. >> What should those be? > >- I'd like the produced images to be: > - the default Fedora distribution as described above (could be a LiveCD spin) > - the netinst/rescue iso > - the spins > > Without a specific target audience, the current Fedora tree should go. Oooh. I very much like this. Though by F15/F16 we might replace it with a LiveDVD instead of a LiveCD. Either way, the Fedora tree is certainly primed for dropping. josh From stickster at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 01:57:53 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:57:53 -0600 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE2116.9070908@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE2116.9070908@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <20091009015753.GB9776@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 01:27:50PM -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > I agree. I think that more experienced users and developers are a > little frightened of a Fedora Simple - there's certainly a risk of > making it annoying for them, but I don't think that will necessarily > be the case. I think if we do things right, in the end a Fedora > Simple would be something good for advanced techies to use as well. > > E.g., I don't think OS X's primary target is developers, but I think > there are plenty of highly-technical developers and other folks who > enjoy using OS X. > > >I think the thing that leaves me unsettled is that all of this > >seems to stem from the fact that some new users are not having a > >great experience with Fedora, and rather than analyze that problem > >and work on usability improvements, we are choosing to let those > >users go somewhere else, whether that is Mac OSX or Ubuntu or > >Windows. I think that such a decision is terribly short-sighted, > >and will result in a long-term loss of contributors, community, and > >possibly the eventual irrelevance of Fedora. > > Absolutely agreed. I do too, and I also believe that Mo's point above is an excellent summary of how I would respond to people who talk about dumbing down Linux or Fedora. I have been to a *lot* of open source conferences in the past two years, enough that I'm no longer surprised to see that many people there are using Mac OS X. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 01:44:38 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:44:38 -0600 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACE50C8.9000905@redhat.com> References: <4ACE1FD7.6030102@redhat.com> <4ACE24C6.2000607@redhat.com> <4ACE268F.1040707@redhat.com> <4ACE2D4F.7060703@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE3557.60606@linuxgrrl.com> <4ACE50C8.9000905@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091009014438.GA9776@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 04:51:20PM -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > On 10/08/2009 02:54 PM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > >On 10/08/2009 02:38 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > >>I'm in the view we cannot please everyone all the time. My experiences on > >>this earth have lead me to believe that is impossible without an infinite > >>amount of resources. So we have to pick otherwise we have the mob rule we > >>have now. You're right, our software isn't designed for non-technical > >>folks. The question is, should it be? > >> > >>Where we're left is no hope of building a prius. The larger tires and > >>roll cage being designed by some engineers just won't work with the > >>smaller more gas efficient engine our other engineers are designing. > > > >If we focus on highly-technical users, which is a totally valid path, > >can we achieve our goals as a project? > > Great question, actually. > > I don't believe we can, tbh. Highly technical users already know > the benefits of FOSS. We don't really need to promote it to them, > they already use FOSS in some manner, most likely. > > We'd essentially be competing against other distros for their love. > We need to show people that FOSS can be just as viable for them to > use as commercial software, and to that end, we need to show that to > less technical users, IMHO for FOSS to really become a truly viable > choice. Right. The Fedora *Project* wants to concentrate on nurturing contributors. That does not mean the distribution we produce and tout should be designed to preach to the choir. Recalling the pyramid diagram: Making a smaller pyramid base -- made up of the people we the Project hope to interest by putting out a product every six months -- does not further our goal. Nor does it improve our chances of igniting people's imaginations so they want to move up the pyramid from the base to the tip. Paul From walters at verbum.org Fri Oct 9 02:23:30 2009 From: walters at verbum.org (Colin Walters) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:23:30 -0400 Subject: Suggested definition Message-ID: Hi, let me try: Q: What is Fedora? A (one sentence):?A project to produce a general purpose operating system, composed entirely of Free Software, along with a collection of packaged additional software. From mmcgrath at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 03:50:34 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 22:50:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: www.fpo redesign status In-Reply-To: <20090924123114.GC17173@localhost.localdomain> References: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> <20090924071613.GA606@alpha.rzhou.org> <20090924123114.GC17173@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 03:16:13AM -0400, Ricky Zhou wrote: > > On 2009-09-24 03:07:46 AM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > > The original due date for the finished www.fpo mockups is this Friday. > > > I'm on a business trip this week and it's quite clear to me now I just > > > won't be able to make the deadline. :( Would it be okay if I tried for > > > next Friday, Oct. 2? It should still leave 2 weeks for HTML/CSS on those > > > pages, and the spins mocks have been done for a week so it shouldn't > > > hold up Hiemanshu & co. since they still have those to work on. > > Sounds good, we should have our hands full with spins.fp.o for a while anyway. > > > > Thanks for keeping us updated, > > Ricky > > This sounds reasonable to me too. Ricky, how is progress on the > spins.fp.o HTML/CSS work? > ping? It's been two weeks. How is the implementation going? -Mike From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 05:44:47 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:44:47 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091008212224.GF3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE2198.4070505@redhat.com> <1255032543.3656.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091008212224.GF3583@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1255067087.3656.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:22 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: > > > I don't think spins are nearly as different as we think they are. > > > > They really can't be outside of "different mixes of the software that > > exists in Fedora". > > Do we want to enable them to be? I can see where this would allow them > a little more latitude in making some changes... while also exploding > the test matrix. > > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board It would also make trademark issues harder. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 05:50:35 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:50:35 -0700 Subject: We can't target any user without fixing these 5 things In-Reply-To: <4ACE4C1A.5050803@redhat.com> References: <4ACE4C1A.5050803@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1255067435.3656.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:31 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > 5. Start an initiative to automate as much of the above as possible. > Possibly as GSoC projects. Particularly, I'd like to see a tinderbox > which creates VMs from a buildroot+ks file, runs automated tests for the > critical path, and outputs the PASS/FAIL results. I'd also like to have > a post-commit hook which reminds people to not break stuff and to be > available to the sheriff on IRC. This is already being worked on by the QA team, with quite a lot of progress already. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From ricky at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 9 07:28:07 2009 From: ricky at fedoraproject.org (Ricky Zhou) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 03:28:07 -0400 Subject: www.fpo redesign status In-Reply-To: References: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> <20090924071613.GA606@alpha.rzhou.org> <20090924123114.GC17173@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091009072807.GC5270@alpha.rzhou.org> On 2009-10-08 10:50:34 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > ping? It's been two weeks. How is the implementation going? I know that Sijis and Hiemanshu have started on HTML/CSS and organizing the structure in the git repo, but unfortunately, school has completely taken over all of my time especially this semester, so I haven't been able to help them out much :-( Thanks, Ricky -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 9 07:59:54 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:29:54 +0530 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <5256d0b0910081506v57510e69ic3ef59e484915bc8@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <4ACE2198.4070505@redhat.com> <5256d0b0910081506v57510e69ic3ef59e484915bc8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4ACEED7A.2060904@fedoraproject.org> On 10/09/2009 03:36 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > > If we're losing users we have to ask why? Or work out why. I'm often > wondered why Dell uses Ubuntu on their desktops/laptops over Ubuntu. > Is it because we don't ship proprietary drivers? Is it because we > don't ship mp3 codecs. I personally think we're mostly a better fit > because with things like NetworkManager we've had support for things > like plug and play 3G modems alot longer. Primarily because Dell can talk to Canonical and companies prefer to talk to other companies and setup OEM agreements like these. Talking to a community project like Fedora is more trickier and yes, proprietary stuff is often needed for consumer desktops and laptops. Rahul From markmc at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 08:29:22 2009 From: markmc at redhat.com (Mark McLoughlin) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:29:22 +0100 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091008024610.GC30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091008104832.GE30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <935ead450910080829t62ddc0a0x76cd7e20ee9489a3@mail.gmail.com> <935ead450910080855u343b6da6of081918567add4c2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1255076962.2786.32.camel@blaa> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 11:59 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > the developers work for their manager. Ie: I work for Tom. So Does Mike > and a lot of folks on the fedora team. But the desktop team developers > work for Jonathan. So a different set of people in charge. > > > The board has no hiearchical control over either Tom or Jonathan so > directing them to direct their people to do something or to NOT do > something is not within the purview of the board as I understand it. You make it sound almost like Tom and Jonathan have direct control over Fedora, which I'm sure they'd surprised to hear :-) Put it this way - the board can attempt to set a vision for the project, but it won't work unless it is a motivating vision which roughly coincides with the ideas most people already have. That's no different from Jonathan or anyone else on the desktop team attempting to set a vision for the desktop spin. Unless they can bring people along with that vision, it ultimately doesn't work out. Setting out a vision isn't about hierarchial control. We're all bumbling along now with whatever rough consensus we can garner. The board can merely help to crystalize consensus and motivate people around it. Cheers, Mark. From markmc at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 08:43:28 2009 From: markmc at redhat.com (Mark McLoughlin) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:43:28 +0100 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4ACE1928.6080308@redhat.com> <6d4237680910081013l294bd1e3k9ee55af2269a3a6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1255077808.2786.37.camel@blaa> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 13:20 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > Let's say some people here on this list wanted a non-gtk-fedora. And they > prepared a set of patches for anaconda to get rid of the gtk/gnome > requirement there. If we had enough people behind it would the board say > to the anaconda team manager: the community has said they want a > non-gtk-fedora. We should follow them? Uggh, the "anaconda team manager"? Do you mean the anaconda maintainers? Why would the board feel it should get involved? Shouldn't the anaconda maintainers decide based on what they think is best for anaconda, while sounding out what the rest of the community thinks? Maybe you mean the board would jump in if it felt the anaconda maintainers were blatantly ignoring some manifest consensus on the matter? Cheers, Mark. From gdk at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 15:05:59 2009 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 11:05:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: A bit late to this thread -- my apologies. Here's what I believe, and forgive me if it's too fuzzy and meta. I believe that the Fedora leadership should stake out positions that they believe to be correct, and should work to mobilize resources that move us in those directions. That's what leadership is for, and that should be the primary mission of the Board. I also believe, however, that the Board must guarantee the freedom for dissenting community members to move in their own directions. Fedora's governance was built to ensure precisely this freedom. The Board is empowered to bless the "Foo Project", but any Fedora contributor is free to form the "Anti-Foo SIG," even if the goal of that SIG is to prove, through their constructive actions, that the direction of the "Foo Project" is wrong. It concerns me that we seem to be taking a tone that encourages us to exclude people, as though it is strictly necessary to tell people "we don't care about that, go away". It is not necessary to do this. Rather, I believe that we should say "we care primarily about *this*, and so we will focus on it, but we understand that you care primarily about *that*, and we welcome your attempts to make *that* happen as well." Note that this does *not* mean that we're settling for some watered-down form of lowest-common-denominator democracy, as some seem to imply; rather, it is a pluralistic meritocracy, in which we recognize that both ideas *and actions* can come from all directions, even opposite ones -- and that today's popular idea is not necessarily the only worthwhile idea. It is critical to understand this pluralism, and to protect it. I understand that there will be a handful of cases that are truly either/or -- i.e. there can be either one default spin or many default spins, and we must choose one or the other. That's fine. Let's make decisions where we must make them -- but otherwise, let everyone pursue their passions as far as their abilites will carry them, and let us do our best to recognize those efforts wherever they bear fruit. --g -- Computer Science professors should be teaching open source. Help make it happen. Visit http://teachingopensource.org. From mmcgrath at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 15:55:25 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:55:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > A bit late to this thread -- my apologies. Here's what I believe, and forgive > me if it's too fuzzy and meta. > > I believe that the Fedora leadership should stake out positions that they > believe to be correct, and should work to mobilize resources that move us in > those directions. That's what leadership is for, and that should be the > primary mission of the Board. > > I also believe, however, that the Board must guarantee the freedom for > dissenting community members to move in their own directions. Fedora's > governance was built to ensure precisely this freedom. The Board is empowered > to bless the "Foo Project", but any Fedora contributor is free to form the > "Anti-Foo SIG," even if the goal of that SIG is to prove, through their > constructive actions, that the direction of the "Foo Project" is wrong. > > It concerns me that we seem to be taking a tone that encourages us to exclude > people, as though it is strictly necessary to tell people "we don't care about > that, go away". It is not necessary to do this. Rather, I believe that we > should say "we care primarily about *this*, and so we will focus on it, but we > understand that you care primarily about *that*, and we welcome your attempts > to make *that* happen as well." > I don't think anyone has said or implied that anyone will be telling someone else to leave the project, in fact I'm pretty sure any comment on that topic has been firmly against that. -Mike From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 16:04:44 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:04:44 -0700 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ACF5F1C.4020803@redhat.com> Seth Vidal said the following on 10/08/2009 11:33 AM Pacific Time: > Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of > some irc-discussions: > > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest > the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. > My first sense was that you were trolling the board, trying to make an unspoken point, or trying to steer the board towards a certain (uncomfortable) place. So before assuming any longer, are there other intentions behind this suggestion? :-) > It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. > And users reinstalling are reinstalling. > > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it > will test how well our processes work. > > > And if we have stunning success then the board re-evals the default spin > again. > > thoughts? It seems haphazard to make this switch simply because: a) the board decides b) it shows the spins process works c) it won't hurt anyone. I would make this decision more on the merits of how it meets the needs of the targeted audience. a) Who do you believe Fedora's target audience is? b) How would rotating spins every release better meet the needs of that audience? John From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 9 16:10:49 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:10:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <4ACF5F1C.4020803@redhat.com> References: <4ACF5F1C.4020803@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, John Poelstra wrote: > My first sense was that you were trolling the board, trying to make an > unspoken point, or trying to steer the board towards a certain > (uncomfortable) place. So before assuming any longer, are there other > intentions behind this suggestion? :-) No. But are you going to believe me anyway? apparently not. > It seems haphazard to make this switch simply because: > a) the board decides > b) it shows the spins process works > c) it won't hurt anyone. I don't grok this at all. What's haphazard about testing our processes in a way that won't hurt anyone? It seems like the antithesis of haphazard. > I would make this decision more on the merits of how it meets the needs of > the targeted audience. > a) Who do you believe Fedora's target audience is? > b) How would rotating spins every release better meet the needs of that > audience? 1. no one said anything about (b) at all 2. what are you talking about with a? -sv From maxamillion at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 16:24:20 2009 From: maxamillion at gmail.com (Adam Miller) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 11:24:20 -0500 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4ACF5F1C.4020803@redhat.com> Message-ID: While I *really* think this would be a great idea to alternate which spin is considered default, I can't help ignore that the Desktop spin (with credit to the Gnome and $other devs) does have the highest level of support for "next generation" technologies that Fedora is constantly releasing (which I'm a big fan of) and I think we should put our best foot forward in order to offer the user the best representation of Fedora's technical merit. Just my thoughts on the topic and I say this as a fanatic/advocate/maintainer of the Xfce spin so I don't want it to turn into a "but $MY_FAV_DE can do $foo also" argument. I just think its the nature of the beast. -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com --------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Fri Oct 9 16:32:00 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:32:00 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4ACF6580.5050006@linuxgrrl.com> Hey Greg! On 10/09/2009 11:05 AM, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Note that this does *not* mean that we're settling for some watered-down > form of lowest-common-denominator democracy, as some seem to imply; > rather, it is a pluralistic meritocracy, in which we recognize that both > ideas *and actions* can come from all directions, even opposite ones -- > and that today's popular idea is not necessarily the only worthwhile > idea. It is critical to understand this pluralism, and to protect it. > > I understand that there will be a handful of cases that are truly > either/or -- i.e. there can be either one default spin or many default > spins, and we must choose one or the other. That's fine. Let's make > decisions where we must make them -- but otherwise, let everyone pursue > their passions as far as their abilites will carry them, and let us do > our best to recognize those efforts wherever they bear fruit. I agree with this. However, I'm not sure anyone here wouldn't. I don't *think* folks here take issue with the ingredients we've got floating around in the kitchen, and I don't think anyone is looking to throw any of them out. I think the problem is more that we haven't decided on a recipe with which to present them in. In the end, we've got to offer a menu that makes sense. And to the outside world, the Fedora menu looks like a confused mess. Rather than try to interpret it, most folks head down to the street to the more-easily-grokked McDonald's. So, I think the problem is more one of positioning / messaging / story. I feel like ours is ill-defined and happenstance, especially going through the process of the www.fedoraproject.org and spins.fedoraproject.org redesign. Does anyone else feel this way? Let me give an example of another distro's positioning strategy to show what I mean. In the Ubuntu world, there is one Ubuntu desktop. If I tell my friends I'm using Ubuntu, they know what I am referring to. If you want KDE you go to Kubuntu, which has its own separate web presence / community - kubuntu.org. Same for XFCE, Xubuntu. Edubuntu. Ubuntu Studio (ubuntustudio.org). That gives their community a particular flavor / story that's different than our current one, where 'what is Fedora?' is a confusing question for an outside observer - our spins are more firmly under the Fedora brand than in Ubuntu's case, but the relationships between them, the default spin, and the community as a whole are still kind of muddy. [1] Another example of a positioning model that I am unsure if anyone follows - what if Fedora *is* the default spin, and the other spins were posed primarily as 'content packs' that you can load onto the default Fedora (still keeping the bootable spin images, but they aren't center stage as much as the spin content itself.) What I would like to see come out of this discussion is a better story around the relationships and positioning of the elements of Fedora. I think right now we've got a bit of a messy smorgasbord. :-/ I would like to see us explore other models of refining and presenting our menu and some discussion around which models support our goals and values as a community. ~m (sorry for all the food analogies, I love cooking) [1] I'm not trying to suggest the Ubuntu model is where we should go. I do not like that model. Instead, I'm simply trying to demonstrate an example. From gdk at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 16:39:46 2009 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:39:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACF6580.5050006@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACF6580.5050006@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hey Greg! > > On 10/09/2009 11:05 AM, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: >> Note that this does *not* mean that we're settling for some watered-down >> form of lowest-common-denominator democracy, as some seem to imply; >> rather, it is a pluralistic meritocracy, in which we recognize that both >> ideas *and actions* can come from all directions, even opposite ones -- >> and that today's popular idea is not necessarily the only worthwhile >> idea. It is critical to understand this pluralism, and to protect it. >> >> I understand that there will be a handful of cases that are truly >> either/or -- i.e. there can be either one default spin or many default >> spins, and we must choose one or the other. That's fine. Let's make >> decisions where we must make them -- but otherwise, let everyone pursue >> their passions as far as their abilites will carry them, and let us do >> our best to recognize those efforts wherever they bear fruit. > > I agree with this. However, I'm not sure anyone here wouldn't. Just making sure. :) There's a big difference between asking "how do we decide how to best present ourselves to audience X" and "how do we decide who we are". I'm all for driving clarity in the first case -- but I'm very nervous about people pushing for an answer in the second case. --g -- Computer Science professors should be teaching open source. Help make it happen. Visit http://teachingopensource.org. From stickster at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 16:44:06 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:44:06 -0600 Subject: www.fpo redesign status In-Reply-To: <20091009072807.GC5270@alpha.rzhou.org> References: <4ABB1AC2.3040609@linuxgrrl.com> <20090924071613.GA606@alpha.rzhou.org> <20090924123114.GC17173@localhost.localdomain> <20091009072807.GC5270@alpha.rzhou.org> Message-ID: <20091009164406.GF15272@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 03:28:07AM -0400, Ricky Zhou wrote: > On 2009-10-08 10:50:34 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > ping? It's been two weeks. How is the implementation going? > I know that Sijis and Hiemanshu have started on HTML/CSS and organizing > the structure in the git repo, but unfortunately, school has completely > taken over all of my time especially this semester, so I haven't been > able to help them out much :-( http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2009-October/msg00001.html I asked Hiemanshu for a status report on fedora-websites-list and he came back with a detailed TO-DO list. I've been trying to recruit people out here at UTOSC and online to help with remaining tasks. Mike, Ricky, do you have any suggestions for getting people excited about this project and involved in working on the remaining HTML coding? -- 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 rdieter at math.unl.edu Fri Oct 9 17:06:38 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:06:38 -0500 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4ACF6D9E.2080602@math.unl.edu> Seth Vidal wrote: > Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of > some irc-discussions: > > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest > the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. ... > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it > will test how well our processes work. If nothing else, this is a very worthwhile "what-if" thought-experiment. It would help highlight process assumptions and associated pain-points, to help pave the way for other successful derivatives/spins. Fedora's spin process has been haphazardly taking baby steps in that direction over the past couple of releases, and the kde-sig will continue to work earnestly with this now-clear goal in mind. We've also garnered commitments from our own and upstream kde developers to help work through any implementation or technical details required. -- Rex From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 17:08:32 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:08:32 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACF6E10.3060806@redhat.com> Here are my answers to the questions I originally raised. John Poelstra said the following on 10/06/2009 09:11 PM Pacific Time: > > (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe > narrow the definition to "default spin")--without a clear target > audience for our product there is a lack of clarity around when we are > "done." It also makes it difficult to make decisions about release > quality and release composition. I propose someone fitting this profile: o moderately experienced computer users who wants to use Linux as a desktop (email, web surfing, office suite, software development) or to run simple web services --they should not have to go to the command line to fix problems that come up due to bad package updates or other unintended regressions o comfortable installing a new operating system themselves to a stand-alone machine (no dual boot or other craziness--wipe the whole drive and continue) o someone interested in going deeper and learning more about how the operating system works I'm not opposed to the profile Mike McGrath has proposed either along the lines of "targeting developers". If we go that direction I think it would be important to have a clear pathway for people that are not developers to become developers. Otherwise I could see us stagnating if we expected people to just come to us already having experience. CALLING ANY EXPERTS OR INDUSTRY FOLKS: Are there any product marketing or brand people out there that can suggest some good methodology or an approach to defining a target audience that is more efficient than our approach thus far? IOW, what is the simplest way to define and explain our "target audience" without creating a wiki page that is 15 paragraphs long and 25 questions to answer? > (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distirbution to > look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What > should those be? o Our release processes are running smoothly and more people understand how they work--no last minute "I didn't realize Feature Freeze meant my feature had to be mostly done." o Our releases ship on time and we do not miss any of our test or final release dates --if we do, it is for something other than, blocker bugs weren't fixed in time or rawhide wasn't working o The release under development is destabilized far less than it is today --"unfrozen rawhide" is fully implemented and the main branch release under development is stable and can be reverted to (thus allowing us to ship on time) when regressions or other bugs are introduced --in a given month rawhide was installable and usable for regular desktop use 90% of the time. o The question of who our target audience is or what the Fedora distro is for are answered and established. --When these topics come up they are discussed in form of "we should change from X to Y" not "how about X or Y or why do we need to decide?". > (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Fedora Project to > look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. What > should those be? o Wider integration and use of the community portal --Establish a clearer vision of who this portal is for and what how it will be used by more people --Actively use and take advantage of it --I know the portal does a lot of cool things, but I'm not sure who its intended audience is o We can accurately answer questions like (beyond just counting FAS accounts): --Is community participation growing or slowing? --Is the Fedora Project attracting new people? --Are they staying? --What makes them stay? --How involved are they? --What is causing them to leave? o The Fedora Project is known as a welcoming software community that helps other people grow. --It is considered the "gold standard" for how well run open source software projects work. This same standard is also applied to the way we create our distro and how it is received by our targeted audience. --We have an established way to measure this > (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed by > the release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a better > product or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What should those > things be? 1) Completely (as in nothing deferred to Fedora 14) implement the "unfrozen rawhide" proposal 2) Update our documented release process and freeze policies so that more people can understand them and find them --I'm planning to help with this one. --Ideas on how to measure the success or failure of this is welcome. 3) More communication about upcoming schedule milestones and what the expectations are around those milestones --I'm planning to help with this one. --Ideas on how to measure the success or failure of this is welcome. 4) Release Criteria for each release: Alpha, Beta, and Final--I'm planning to help with this one. --in order to write good release criteria we need to know what the goals are for what we are creating and releasing --To to this we also have be able define what success is for our releases. --I'm suggesting something beyond what we have now and have some drafts in progress 5) Clear instructions and a guide so that anyone can write a test for the automated QA testing framework. Established processes for adding newly written tests to the framework and seeing the results. 6) The automated testing framework tells us more often than not when rawhide is unusable on a particular day vs. someone discovering it on their own. A place for fedora-test-list posters to check first. From mmcgrath at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 17:09:16 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:09:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <4ACF6D9E.2080602@math.unl.edu> References: <4ACF6D9E.2080602@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Rex Dieter wrote: > Seth Vidal wrote: > > Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of some > > irc-discussions: > > > > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest the > > board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. > ... > > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it will > > test how well our processes work. > > If nothing else, this is a very worthwhile "what-if" thought-experiment. It > would help highlight process assumptions and associated pain-points, to help > pave the way for other successful derivatives/spins. > > Fedora's spin process has been haphazardly taking baby steps in that direction > over the past couple of releases, and the kde-sig will continue to work > earnestly with this now-clear goal in mind. We've also garnered commitments > from our own and upstream kde developers to help work through any > implementation or technical details required. > This is probably naive of me, but besides changing the link on the get-fedora page to KDE or XFCE... What else would there be? -Mike From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 9 17:10:58 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4ACF6D9E.2080602@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Seth Vidal wrote: >>> Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of some >>> irc-discussions: >>> >>> Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest the >>> board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. >> ... >>> It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it will >>> test how well our processes work. >> >> If nothing else, this is a very worthwhile "what-if" thought-experiment. It >> would help highlight process assumptions and associated pain-points, to help >> pave the way for other successful derivatives/spins. >> >> Fedora's spin process has been haphazardly taking baby steps in that direction >> over the past couple of releases, and the kde-sig will continue to work >> earnestly with this now-clear goal in mind. We've also garnered commitments >> from our own and upstream kde developers to help work through any >> implementation or technical details required. >> > > > This is probably naive of me, but besides changing the link on the > get-fedora page to KDE or XFCE... What else would there be? I guess making kde or xfce be the desktop install selected by default with anaconda in comps/installclasses. But that's about it. This why I figured this wasn't a terribly code-invasive change. -sv From rdieter at math.unl.edu Fri Oct 9 17:28:58 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:28:58 -0500 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4ACF6D9E.2080602@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <4ACF72DA.7040409@math.unl.edu> Mike McGrath wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Seth Vidal wrote: >>> Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of some >>> irc-discussions: >>> >>> Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest the >>> board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. >> ... >>> It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it will >>> test how well our processes work. >> If nothing else, this is a very worthwhile "what-if" thought-experiment. It >> would help highlight process assumptions and associated pain-points, to help >> pave the way for other successful derivatives/spins. >> >> Fedora's spin process has been haphazardly taking baby steps in that direction >> over the past couple of releases, and the kde-sig will continue to work >> earnestly with this now-clear goal in mind. We've also garnered commitments >> from our own and upstream kde developers to help work through any >> implementation or technical details required. >> > > > This is probably naive of me, but besides changing the link on the > get-fedora page to KDE or XFCE... What else would there be? When all is said and done, that is how you'd pull the trigger to make it happen, sure. Getting there will involve some significant work to do it right. I have some ideas, and will happily to share them... but I'd prefer not to derail the conversation with them at this point. -- Rex From jwboyer at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 17:49:35 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:49:35 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4ACF6D9E.2080602@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20091009174935.GM30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:10:58PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: >> This is probably naive of me, but besides changing the link on the >> get-fedora page to KDE or XFCE... What else would there be? > > I guess making kde or xfce be the desktop install selected by default > with anaconda in comps/installclasses. > > But that's about it. This why I figured this wasn't a terribly > code-invasive change. Would this impact our documentation at all? Howtos and install guides that are currently based on the default Desktop spin? I honestly don't know because I don't read the documentation, but I would think we'd need some focus there. (Yes, I know not code changes per se. But just adding another thing that would likely need changing other than a link) josh From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 17:53:45 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:53:45 -0700 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4ACF5F1C.4020803@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4ACF78A9.8040602@redhat.com> Seth Vidal said the following on 10/09/2009 09:10 AM Pacific Time: > > > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, John Poelstra wrote: > > >> My first sense was that you were trolling the board, trying to make an >> unspoken point, or trying to steer the board towards a certain >> (uncomfortable) place. So before assuming any longer, are there other >> intentions behind this suggestion? :-) > > No. But are you going to believe me anyway? apparently not. > I was trying to have a thoughtful conversation by asking your intentions. A simple "no" would have been fine. If you don't trust me and don't think I trust you then I guess further conversation doesn't make a lot sense. John From rdieter at math.unl.edu Fri Oct 9 18:12:42 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:12:42 -0500 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <20091009174935.GM30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4ACF6D9E.2080602@math.unl.edu> <20091009174935.GM30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <4ACF7D1A.1060902@math.unl.edu> Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:10:58PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: >>> This is probably naive of me, but besides changing the link on the >>> get-fedora page to KDE or XFCE... What else would there be? >> I guess making kde or xfce be the desktop install selected by default >> with anaconda in comps/installclasses. >> >> But that's about it. This why I figured this wasn't a terribly >> code-invasive change. > > Would this impact our documentation at all? Howtos and install guides that > are currently based on the default Desktop spin? Yes, docs is one area I had in mind that would need some love (clarifications mostly). Oh well, other areas requiring work off the top of my head include: * improving comps, to remove assumptions about DE defaults (this will lend well to helping address M?ir?n's "menu" problem). * improving collaboration/integration of our fedora "First" technologies (highlighted elsewhere in this thread). -- Rex From notting at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 21:07:02 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:07:02 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091009210702.GA19689@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Seth Vidal (skvidal at fedoraproject.org) said: > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I > suggest the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for > F14. > > It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. > And users reinstalling are reinstalling. > > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and > it will test how well our processes work. > > And if we have stunning success then the board re-evals the default > spin again. > > thoughts? I think performing an experiment that switches all the defaults, invalidates the docs, walkthroughs, etc. and associated community knowledge is a *really bad idea* if we're trying to provide any sort of consistent user experience. Bill From notting at redhat.com Fri Oct 9 21:15:37 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:15:37 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255031676.11711.2066.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <1255036216.11711.2136.camel@atropine.boston.devel.redhat.com> <4ACE59BE.9010006@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091009211536.GB19689@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Seth Vidal (skvidal at fedoraproject.org) said: > The discussion from today has shown that we believe the spins to be > a way of fitting anyone's needs into fedora. To allowing everyone to > be involved and get what they want out of fedora. This... > I asked this > question about the default spin being changed to xfce or kde to > point out that if our spins are equal among themselves - especially > the desktop-oriented ones ... does not logically lead to this conclusion. Put it this way... it has been repeatedly stated earlier in these threads, by multiple people, that a large problem is trying to be all things to all people, which leads to technical gridlock and an inability to make informed decisions. If you go down this road by saying that all of the spins must be equal among themselves, that's describing a *mandate* that we be all things to all people; the TWM spin must be given the same attention as the boots-to-emacs spin. This does not help solve the problem; this makes it worse. Bill From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Fri Oct 9 21:33:00 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 17:33:00 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACF6580.5050006@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ACF6580.5050006@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4ACFAC0C.1060007@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/09/2009 12:32 PM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Another example of a positioning model that I am unsure if anyone > follows - what if Fedora *is* the default spin, and the other spins were > posed primarily as 'content packs' that you can load onto the default > Fedora (still keeping the bootable spin images, but they aren't center > stage as much as the spin content itself.) > > What I would like to see come out of this discussion is a better story > around the relationships and positioning of the elements of Fedora. I > think right now we've got a bit of a messy smorgasbord. :-/ I would like > to see us explore other models of refining and presenting our menu and > some discussion around which models support our goals and values as a > community. Here's my poor attempt at drawing up a diagram of one possible model... http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/temp/fedora-model-1.png What do you think? Are there other models we can sketch up? ~m From stickster at gmail.com Sat Oct 10 06:02:05 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:02:05 -0600 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <20091009210702.GA19689@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20091009210702.GA19689@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091010060205.GF12944@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 05:07:02PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Seth Vidal (skvidal at fedoraproject.org) said: > > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I > > suggest the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for > > F14. > > > > It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. > > And users reinstalling are reinstalling. > > > > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and > > it will test how well our processes work. > > > > And if we have stunning success then the board re-evals the default > > spin again. > > > > thoughts? > > I think performing an experiment that switches all the defaults, > invalidates the docs, walkthroughs, etc. and associated community > knowledge is a *really bad idea* if we're trying to provide any sort > of consistent user experience. I agree. I don't see how this gets us closer to a more deliberate approach to dealing with any target audience. It makes the Fedora distribution a zigzag that confuses and then loses audience. What makes the spins process f'real is the fact that communities who care about those spins are able to gather effort around them, produce them, and have them hosted on Fedora Project infrastructure, and promote them to whatever extent they like. As a thought experiment this is arguably worthwhile, but it would fail with the audience on which the other current FAB conversation is converging. -- 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 jreznik at redhat.com Sat Oct 10 06:47:55 2009 From: jreznik at redhat.com (Jaroslav Reznik) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:47:55 +0200 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <4ACF7D1A.1060902@math.unl.edu> References: <20091009174935.GM30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <4ACF7D1A.1060902@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <200910100847.55446.jreznik@redhat.com> On Friday 09 October 2009 20:12:42 Rex Dieter wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 01:10:58PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > >>> This is probably naive of me, but besides changing the link on the > >>> get-fedora page to KDE or XFCE... What else would there be? > >> > >> I guess making kde or xfce be the desktop install selected by default > >> with anaconda in comps/installclasses. > >> > >> But that's about it. This why I figured this wasn't a terribly > >> code-invasive change. > > > > Would this impact our documentation at all? Howtos and install guides > > that are currently based on the default Desktop spin? > > Yes, docs is one area I had in mind that would need some love > (clarifications mostly). Yes, it's sad we still don't have it ready. It's stalled as my documentation skills in English are bad. So take this message as call for brave writers and poets, we need your help! We have some bits already prepared. Jaroslav > Oh well, other areas requiring work off the top of my head include: > * improving comps, to remove assumptions about DE defaults (this will > lend well to helping address M?ir?n's "menu" problem). > * improving collaboration/integration of our fedora "First" technologies > (highlighted elsewhere in this thread). > > -- Rex > > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > From rdieter at math.unl.edu Sat Oct 10 21:46:21 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:46:21 -0500 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <20091009210702.GA19689@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20091009210702.GA19689@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AD100AD.1090404@math.unl.edu> On 10/09/2009 04:07 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > I think performing an experiment that switches all the defaults, > invalidates the docs, walkthroughs, etc. and associated community > knowledge is a *really bad idea* ... I consider it an important and valuable opportunity, to clarify, improve, and expand upon all those things you mentioned, but color me a glass-half-full kind of guy. -- Rex From mmcgrath at redhat.com Sat Oct 10 21:46:38 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:46:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Beta packages within stable releases In-Reply-To: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> References: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> Message-ID: How timely. On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Ken Chilton wrote: > Dear members of the Fedora Board, > I'm also curious about the !Fedora Board. > I wish to encourage you to reconsider the policies regarding packages in Fedora releases.? Currently, within Fedora 11, > there are key packages being distributed which are still in beta or otherwise unstable condition with matching, prior > stable packages available.? Fedora 11, as best as I can tell, is not a beta or development release. > > There used to be a practice in all things Linux where even-numbered release numbers implied stable releases, where > odd-numbered releases were development tracks.? The Linux kernel follows such a scheme, with 2.4.x and 2.6.x being the > (more) stable.? I am unaware that Fedora 11 is following this scheme.? Please correct me if I am mistaken.? It also might > be nice to modify the Fedora Project web page to indicate that release 11 is a development platform and provide clear > links to Fedora 10. > There's a couple of things going on here. The important ones I think are the first two of our mission statements: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission "Always strives to lead, not follow." "consistently seeks to create, improve, and spread free/libre code and content." What you are asking, in my opinion, is to slow down a bit. This doesn't necessarily have to conflict with our first mission but it might put it at risk. There's been much soul searching related to this very topic over the last several weeks (I assume you've seen it). > Two packages of particular note and suitable as exemplars are Firefox and Thunderbird.? These are well-known and basic to > the Fedora release for most users.? While many Linux developers produce high-quality betas and releases, these two > packages are worth special attention. > > Firefox 3.5.3-1 has both a memory leak and a problem with CPU usage.? When left open for more than a day, with several > tabs used, the package steadily increases its memory consumption from a few hundred megabytes to over 1.6 gigabytes.? The > CPU consumption, on a multicore AMD machine, has been observed to start at 40% while minimized to 100% after a few hours > on non-use.? Users of the latest versions of Firefox have found that frequent killing of the Firefox process and > restarting is required (this is on Fedora, not Windows).? While this problem has existed to some small degree in the > past, the latest versions are actually much worse, contrary to the Firefox developers' claims.? While the Firefox > community continues to struggle with fixes, removal of add-ins, and other attempts to locate the source of the problems > and placate their users on all platforms, Fedora continues to adopt the latest buggy release of the tool as it is > unleashed.? It would seem prudent that Fedora have some degree of QA concerning the packages it considers key.? A web > browser is one of the features that everyone from the mere novice to the staunch professional requires.? Fedora should > select the best browser available, and not just the most recent or the one with the most features.? It would seem > appropriate that Fedora should refuse to move forward to newer releases of packages that move backward in quality.? > Fedora Project should implement its own QA and select the stable releases for its stable releases. This might also be of > benefit to the Firefox developers, who can spend more time chasing down the problems Fedora has implicated, and less time > trying to run and tie their shoelaces at the same time. > > Thunderbird 3 is currently undergoing many changes.? While developers continue to add more features and new development > versions are released, those working on the coding and testing of the new features are not at all disturbed by the > frequent changes to the UI and other characteristics of the tool.? However, those who depend on the email facilities in > Fedora are likely quite worried when Thunderbird pops up a dire warning about using a beta package for real life.? Anyone > who would be furious when all of their email, current and filed, is lost because the beta package did what we were told > it could do.? A user who expects to take a quick check of his email and finds that the whole UI has changed, his > preferences gone, and previously admissible email now finds a home in the junk mail abyss might be a bit perturbed by the > advent of Fedora 11.? It would seem quite reasonable that Fedora 11beta would include beta releases, but "Fedora 11 > Release" should have only included Thunderbird 2 in the "release" repository, with Thunderbird 3 in the "testing" one.? > If during the beta phase of Fedora, a package cannot be deemed stable, it should either be excluded from Fedora or Fedora > should revert to the prior, stable version of that package.? Beta software is not intended for production environments.? > Anyone who needs the email to work will not want to rely on a beta package.? Thunderbird 3 has become a black mark on > Fedora 11 and something I hope the Fedora Project plans never to repeat. > > So, I hope this email will be received in a positive light.? I suspect you may have already heard from many others, since > this seems too big to ignore.? I hope that we might see a change in the Fedora Project to provide stable releases to the > community while not hampering development.? This might mean adoption of the even/odd scheme, or a more formal QA criteria > and process, or maybe just slowing down the alpha/beta phases to allow more testing before calling it a release.? I > believe some of what has happened was in hope for the best, but in the end there must be a right solution and that is the > one that considers the consumer.? Please remember that the consumer wants quality, not just quantity. > I personally prefer to have Thunderbird 3 and Firefox 3.5.3 on my desktop because I understand when things are and aren't working right and can communicate that to upstream. In my opinion if you require older versions of these critically important software packages, there are other distributions that offer it. For example the most recent version of Ubuntu ships the 3.0.X tree of Firefox. Others disagree, putting a much higher value on market share and user quantity. In that instance, slowing down might make sense. We would have a more stable environment to work in, which is desirable by most. We'd also be less distinguishable from other distros. Our recent additional commitment to QA will help some of the stability issues many complain about, I don't think there's any plan in place that would detect the specific issues you are describing. In my opinion both Firefox and Thunderbird benefit from us doing early adoption of their software. Additionally, the more stable versions of the software packages you are looking to use are even more stable as a result of Fedora getting them first and helping find and fix those bugs. There's a lot of talent here to do that sort of work. As far as the bigger question of what 'stable' means. All upstreams have different opinions on what stable means. Even if they didn't, our packagers might disagree. I know we have guidelines on how to package pre-release software, I do not know if there are any policies or guidelines around what is and is not acceptable to be in Fedora. Generally if it's Free Software and it compiles, it can get in. I'm not even sure what body decides this though I'd assume some mixture of the packaging committee and FESCo. Looking outside the box a bit, there's also the option of shipping both versions of some of these 'day to day' packages. Providing both additional stability for the people that want it, and a bit of blood for those that can handle it. Though this puts additional strain on the packagers. -Mike From nigjones at redhat.com Sun Oct 11 00:24:14 2009 From: nigjones at redhat.com (Nigel Jones) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:24:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Beta packages within stable releases In-Reply-To: <1091527.01255220419459.JavaMail.nigjones@njones.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <15838687.21255220647853.JavaMail.nigjones@njones.bne.redhat.com> ----- "Mike McGrath" wrote: > How timely. > > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Ken Chilton wrote: [Snip] > > Two packages of particular note and suitable as exemplars are > Firefox and Thunderbird.? These are well-known and basic to > > the Fedora release for most users.? While many Linux developers > produce high-quality betas and releases, these two > > packages are worth special attention. > > > > Firefox 3.5.3-1 has both a memory leak and a problem with CPU > usage.? When left open for more than a day, with several > > tabs used, the package steadily increases its memory consumption > from a few hundred megabytes to over 1.6 gigabytes.? The > > CPU consumption, on a multicore AMD machine, has been observed to > start at 40% while minimized to 100% after a few hours > > on non-use.? Users of the latest versions of Firefox have found that > frequent killing of the Firefox process and > > restarting is required (this is on Fedora, not Windows).? While this > problem has existed to some small degree in the > > past, the latest versions are actually much worse, contrary to the > Firefox developers' claims.? While the Firefox > > community continues to struggle with fixes, removal of add-ins, and > other attempts to locate the source of the problems > > and placate their users on all platforms, Fedora continues to adopt > the latest buggy release of the tool as it is > > unleashed.? It would seem prudent that Fedora have some degree of QA > concerning the packages it considers key.? A web > > browser is one of the features that everyone from the mere novice to > the staunch professional requires.? Fedora should > > select the best browser available, and not just the most recent or > the one with the most features.? It would seem > > appropriate that Fedora should refuse to move forward to newer > releases of packages that move backward in quality.? > > Fedora Project should implement its own QA and select the stable > releases for its stable releases. This might also be of > > benefit to the Firefox developers, who can spend more time chasing > down the problems Fedora has implicated, and less time > > trying to run and tie their shoelaces at the same time. > > > > Thunderbird 3 is currently undergoing many changes.? While > developers continue to add more features and new development > > versions are released, those working on the coding and testing of > the new features are not at all disturbed by the > > frequent changes to the UI and other characteristics of the tool.? > However, those who depend on the email facilities in > > Fedora are likely quite worried when Thunderbird pops up a dire > warning about using a beta package for real life.? Anyone > > who would be furious when all of their email, current and filed, is > lost because the beta package did what we were told > > it could do.? A user who expects to take a quick check of his email > and finds that the whole UI has changed, his > > preferences gone, and previously admissible email now finds a home > in the junk mail abyss might be a bit perturbed by the > > advent of Fedora 11.? It would seem quite reasonable that Fedora > 11beta would include beta releases, but "Fedora 11 > > Release" should have only included Thunderbird 2 in the "release" > repository, with Thunderbird 3 in the "testing" one.? > > If during the beta phase of Fedora, a package cannot be deemed > stable, it should either be excluded from Fedora or Fedora > > should revert to the prior, stable version of that package.? Beta > software is not intended for production environments.? > > Anyone who needs the email to work will not want to rely on a beta > package.? Thunderbird 3 has become a black mark on > > Fedora 11 and something I hope the Fedora Project plans never to > repeat. > > > > So, I hope this email will be received in a positive light.? I > suspect you may have already heard from many others, since > > this seems too big to ignore.? I hope that we might see a change in > the Fedora Project to provide stable releases to the > > community while not hampering development.? This might mean adoption > of the even/odd scheme, or a more formal QA criteria > > and process, or maybe just slowing down the alpha/beta phases to > allow more testing before calling it a release.? I > > believe some of what has happened was in hope for the best, but in > the end there must be a right solution and that is the > > one that considers the consumer.? Please remember that the consumer > wants quality, not just quantity. > > > > I personally prefer to have Thunderbird 3 and Firefox 3.5.3 on my > desktop > because I understand when things are and aren't working right and can > communicate that to upstream. In my opinion if you require older > versions > of these critically important software packages, there are other > distributions that offer it. For example the most recent version of > Ubuntu ships the 3.0.X tree of Firefox. Sorry Mike, I disagree the above, and actually instead completely agree with Ken. For a stable release (i.e. !rawhide) having software that reliably crashes on a regular basis is _not_ a good user experience. Yes sure, it's unfortunate, but I think there are cases where we need to control ourselves about what we put in a 'stable' repository. What is currently happening is: 3-4 'versions' of 'rawhide' with varying levels of instability. This gives Fedora a black mark by those who a technically inclined, want to use Fedora, but doesn't like stuff crashing (and doesn't have the time to report it), and even more so by those that aren't technically inclined, and don't know how to report it and switch back to Windows, or to another Distribution as a result. - Nigel From kanarip at kanarip.com Sun Oct 11 10:09:01 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:09:01 +0200 Subject: Beta packages within stable releases In-Reply-To: References: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> Message-ID: <4AD1AEBD.3090608@kanarip.com> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Ken Chilton wrote: >> There used to be a practice in all things Linux where even-numbered release numbers implied stable releases, where >> odd-numbered releases were development tracks. The Linux kernel follows such a scheme, with 2.4.x and 2.6.x being the >> (more) stable. *Did follow such a scheme, but no longer. There is no 2.7.x for kinky development thingies for 2.8.x like there was 2.5.x for kinky 2.6.x development thingies, afaik. -- Jeroen From kanarip at kanarip.com Sun Oct 11 10:16:04 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:16:04 +0200 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD1B064.7050603@kanarip.com> On 10/08/2009 08:33 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of > some irc-discussions: > > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest > the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. > > It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. > And users reinstalling are reinstalling. > > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it > will test how well our processes work. > > And if we have stunning success then the board re-evals the default spin > again. > Seconded, great idea! -- Jeroen From kanarip at kanarip.com Mon Oct 12 08:48:30 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:48:30 +0200 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4AD2ED5E.60507@kanarip.com> On 10/09/2009 05:55 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > >> >> A bit late to this thread -- my apologies. Here's what I believe, and forgive >> me if it's too fuzzy and meta. >> >> I believe that the Fedora leadership should stake out positions that they >> believe to be correct, and should work to mobilize resources that move us in >> those directions. That's what leadership is for, and that should be the >> primary mission of the Board. >> >> I also believe, however, that the Board must guarantee the freedom for >> dissenting community members to move in their own directions. Fedora's >> governance was built to ensure precisely this freedom. The Board is empowered >> to bless the "Foo Project", but any Fedora contributor is free to form the >> "Anti-Foo SIG," even if the goal of that SIG is to prove, through their >> constructive actions, that the direction of the "Foo Project" is wrong. >> >> It concerns me that we seem to be taking a tone that encourages us to exclude >> people, as though it is strictly necessary to tell people "we don't care about >> that, go away". It is not necessary to do this. Rather, I believe that we >> should say "we care primarily about *this*, and so we will focus on it, but we >> understand that you care primarily about *that*, and we welcome your attempts >> to make *that* happen as well." >> > > I don't think anyone has said or implied that anyone will be telling > someone else to leave the project, in fact I'm pretty sure any comment on > that topic has been firmly against that. > Maybe not in this topic, but you can see where "we don't care about that, go away" in some recent discussion(s) describes the attitude of some more accurately, then would "we care primarily about *this*, (..) but we understand that you care primarily about *that*, and we welcome your attempts to make *that* happen as well". I think gdk intended to say "go away" more in a sense of "get *that* out of our sight" then to say "leave the project now". -- Jeroen From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Oct 12 10:43:16 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:13:16 +0530 Subject: We can't target any user without fixing these 5 things In-Reply-To: <4ACE4C1A.5050803@redhat.com> References: <4ACE4C1A.5050803@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AD30844.5000700@fedoraproject.org> On 10/09/2009 02:01 AM, Christopher Aillon wrote: > (hm, apparently my VPN connection died on the plane when I thought I had > sent this last Saturday...) > > I think perhaps the single largest issue we have is a lack of > reliability/predictability during a Fedora release stream (e.g. > post-release updates, rawhide) Yep. Even more dangerous is the mentality that is ok and in fact desirable to do this. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-October/msg00452.html Rahul From gz.int.project at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 13:55:29 2009 From: gz.int.project at gmail.com (Gregory Zysk) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:55:29 +0200 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD2ED5E.60507@kanarip.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AD2ED5E.60507@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <9f7776d00910120655q4182cbcakb828f3cf933fa7c@mail.gmail.com> Dear F-a-b, Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Gregory Zysk and I am a new member to the Fedora community who is interested in the strategic management/leadership of Fedora. Please take the time to view my wiki here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Gmzysk As I am quite new, I am not sure about the prior work that has been done to define the question of "What is the Fedora Project?" but from my personal experiences so far every user and contributor view this question in their own way (i.e People person vs. packager/developer, etc) I believe in order to truly form a strategy for growth and target a specific user segment, we need apply some research internally and externally. If not applied already, as a form of Organizational Development, one can start with measuring the needs and values of a contributor through sampling. We can reciprocate this process for all positions within Fedora and then move to the outside of the organization to sample a group of "external" users. For instance, those who use other open source distros, proprietary OS's and the like (This can be accomplished through surveys or focus groups on-line or off-line at for example Fedora events). Once we gain this data, we can begin to measure these needs and values to that of Fedora's needs and values (at a management/leadership level) to see if they are in alignment. One can also view this as aligned resources for strategic fit. I believe once we get some solid data, then we can start to forecast and plan for strategic development which in turn can be used to steer the marketing team and the ambassadors in the way we would like to position ourselves at events, as well as the open source market. Once again, since I am new, I am not sure if this has been brought up before, but nonetheless, I believe I can help a great deal in regards to this topic and overall organizational management, development and planning. I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. All the best, Gregory Zysk On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > On 10/09/2009 05:55 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: >> >> >>> A bit late to this thread -- my apologies. Here's what I believe, and >>> forgive >>> me if it's too fuzzy and meta. >>> >>> I believe that the Fedora leadership should stake out positions that they >>> believe to be correct, and should work to mobilize resources that move us >>> in >>> those directions. That's what leadership is for, and that should be the >>> primary mission of the Board. >>> >>> I also believe, however, that the Board must guarantee the freedom for >>> dissenting community members to move in their own directions. Fedora's >>> governance was built to ensure precisely this freedom. The Board is >>> empowered >>> to bless the "Foo Project", but any Fedora contributor is free to form >>> the >>> "Anti-Foo SIG," even if the goal of that SIG is to prove, through their >>> constructive actions, that the direction of the "Foo Project" is wrong. >>> >>> It concerns me that we seem to be taking a tone that encourages us to >>> exclude >>> people, as though it is strictly necessary to tell people "we don't care >>> about >>> that, go away". It is not necessary to do this. Rather, I believe that >>> we >>> should say "we care primarily about *this*, and so we will focus on it, >>> but we >>> understand that you care primarily about *that*, and we welcome your >>> attempts >>> to make *that* happen as well." >>> >>> >> I don't think anyone has said or implied that anyone will be telling >> someone else to leave the project, in fact I'm pretty sure any comment on >> that topic has been firmly against that. >> >> > Maybe not in this topic, but you can see where "we don't care about that, > go away" in some recent discussion(s) describes the attitude of some more > accurately, then would "we care primarily about *this*, (..) but we > understand that you care primarily about *that*, and we welcome your > attempts to make *that* happen as well". > > I think gdk intended to say "go away" more in a sense of "get *that* out of > our sight" then to say "leave the project now". > > -- Jeroen > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > -- Gregory Zysk https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Gmzysk Fingerprint: 4643 E1AE 1AAD 85D4 6276 7C42 3591 A189 B8BF 04D6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 14:06:50 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:06:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal Message-ID: I put this proposal together based on the various emails I read on this list, other lists and some private emails. The changes listed are entirely around having a more usable, stable desktop environment as that was the most common view I've observed. It's also worthy of note that all of the solutions suggested do not involve me in any way. So view this proposal either as coming from someone who has no idea what they're talking about, or someone who has intimate knowledge of Fedora but is not directly on the front lines of developing the actual operating system. You'll notice the implementation details are left up to the various teams in charge of such a thing. Questions and comments welcome, actions even more so. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmcgrath/Desktop_Proposal -Mike, happy Monday. = ABSTRACT = The goal of these proposals is to provide possible solutions to the various ideas and concerns expressed over the last couple of weeks. Being a general antagonist in this discussion I've had several of my own arguments disputed by what seems like a pretty solid majority. This proposal lists the most common concerns and desires and presents some actionable items. Each item is presented individually and the proposal itself should not be viewed as all or nothing. The general focus of each of the topics below is to provide a more stable, usable desktop. Many of the solutions suggested are from ideas of many. Also check back for updates, I'll be making changes as suggestions come in. = The Desktop = The most common stance on the desktop is that people, regardless of expertise or experience, generally want a stable environment in which to work. There has also been a general opinion that Fedora is not as stable as it could be. Both in terms of rawhide and the GA releases. For a simple definition of stable I'm using: "Works as expected". For the purposes of clarity I'll be discussing Firefox in these examples as initially mentioned in this thread: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-October/msg00161.html Ignore my response to that email, instead focus on the original which for some reason isn't showing up in the archives. I pick this package for a couple of reasons. It's used by a majority of our users. Also, the problems encountered wouldn't be detected by any systems we have in place nor that are currently planned (AutoQA wouldn't have detected this). == Problem 1: If it gets in rawhide, it gets in the GA == Once firefox-3.5-0.20.beta4.fc11.i586 made it in to rawhide. There was literally no turning back. We have no procedure in place to identify it as a problem and no procedure to remove or revert this package for the final release. This means that, in some ways, rawhide isn't a development version of what will be a general release. Instead it is a rolling preview of what _will_ be in the final release. This leaves no room for mistakes during the rawhide process because every update is a commitment. === Soultion 1: An experimental repo === Have FESCo, Release Engineering and the Packaging Committee examine the possibility of an additional repo that is not enabled by default for rawhide and general releases. This repo would contain newer and not yet proven versions, especially those considered to be a common use package. I'd consider these things like web browsers, email clients, window managers, etc. This repo would function similar to the old extras repo did but possibly allowing overriding of packages in the core repositories allowing for smooth upgrade paths. There are several obvious drawbacks here in terms of additional work and complexity but it would aid in the end goal of having a more stable, usable desktop environment. It would also allow us to ship these newer packages thereby not directly conflicting with our first mission statement of being first and a leader. === Solution 2: The revert === As far as I know, there is no way to revert to a previous package once it's in rawhide. This is mostly concerning packages for which we are not the upstream. If Firefox 3.5 was determined to be a turd after a month of rawhide use, there should be some procedure in place to revert, possibly by nomination. I'd suggest FESCo and the packaging committee look at possible technical solutions as well as a procedure to do a revert to see if it is even feasible. Hopefully something cleaner than an epoch, no one wants a Firefox with an epoch. == Problem 2: Major version updates mid release == When updates in the middle of a release break previous functionality or change it in a fundamental way, it causes pain for everyone. This is evident in several fedora-list and fedora-devel threads. One recent thread worty of note is titled "thunderbird upgrade - wtf?". === Solution 1: Don't do it === Have FESCo look at requiring approval for major version updates in the middle of a release or possibly banning them outright. This also has a side effect of fewer updates which many find desirable. This may end up working on the honor system but should be possible while not compromising our first mission objective. This could also be coupled with the experimental repo mentioned above to bring new packages to stable releases but only to those who accept the potential consequences and have enabled such a repo. === Notes on these solutions === Each of the above solutions will create more complex release environments and put more stress on the packagers. Especially those who maintain some fast moving but still common use packages like Firefox. This may be a welcome change for them but will ultimately require more work from several people. = Mission Change = Right now our mission statements, as listed on the overview page are: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission * The Fedora Project always strives to lead, not follow. * The Fedora Project consistently seeks to create, improve, and spread free/libre code and content. * The Fedora Project succeeds through shared action on the part of many people throughout our community. == Problem 1: Too broad == The objectives above are incredibly broad. It's not even clear that we produce a Linux based distribution. Even though the Fedora Project does much more, our biggest feat at this time is the production of the Fedora operating system. == Solution 1: Define an additional mission == Adopt a new mission worded in an agreeable way similar to: "Produce a usable, general purpose desktop operating system" I feel this fundamental shift on the mission page is required. Our teams all do lots of different and valuable work. All of these teams are on a schedule based around our regular releases of the operating system. This will also give our contributors and leaders the ability to ask themselves: "Does this change/feature/task help produce a usable, general purpose desktop operating system?" If the answer to that question is no, perhaps it's worth re-thinking this change/feature/task. = QA = Noticeably absent from this document has been the mention of QA. This is because QA as a team and as a function are undergoing significant changes at this time. It seems inappropriate to comment on a system that is not yet in place. From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 15:32:03 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:32:03 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1255361523.4148.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:06 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > Have FESCo, Release Engineering and the Packaging Committee examine the > possibility of an additional repo that is not enabled by default for > rawhide and general releases. This repo would contain newer and not yet > proven versions, especially those considered to be a common use package. > I'd consider these things like web browsers, email clients, window > managers, etc. This repo would function similar to the old extras repo > did but possibly allowing overriding of packages in the core repositories > allowing for smooth upgrade paths. > > This is already part of the proposal for no frozen rawhide. There will be a rawhide-testing that proposed changes go into, managed by bodhi, and may not ever get pushed to rawhide itself. As to when this repo will open remains an open question. as having it there all the time and requiring maintainers use bodhi for rawhide always may cause a revolt, but using it from feature freeze on may be too late. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 15:33:27 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:33:27 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:06 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > Have FESCo look at requiring approval for major version updates in the > middle of a release or possibly banning them outright. This also has a > side effect of fewer updates which many find desirable. This may end up > working on the honor system but should be possible while not compromising > our first mission objective. > > This could also be coupled with the experimental repo mentioned above to > bring new packages to stable releases but only to those who accept the > potential consequences and have enabled such a repo. This is what updates-testing is for. If it doesn't work in updates-testing, you can just drop it on the floor. The problem is when it gets promoted from -testing to updates. We do /not/ want a third repo here, that makes the logistics balloon out of control. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 15:35:49 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:35:49 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:06 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > = Mission Change = > > Right now our mission statements, as listed on the overview page are: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission > > * The Fedora Project always strives to lead, not follow. > * The Fedora Project consistently seeks to create, improve, and spread > free/libre code and content. > * The Fedora Project succeeds through shared action on the part of > many people throughout our community. > > == Problem 1: Too broad == > > The objectives above are incredibly broad. It's not even clear that we > produce a Linux based distribution. Even though the Fedora Project does > much more, our biggest feat at this time is the production of the Fedora > operating system. > > == Solution 1: Define an additional mission == > > Adopt a new mission worded in an agreeable way similar to: > > "Produce a usable, general purpose desktop operating system" > > I feel this fundamental shift on the mission page is required. Our teams > all do lots of different and valuable work. All of these teams are on a > schedule based around our regular releases of the operating system. This > will also give our contributors and leaders the ability to ask themselves: > > "Does this change/feature/task help produce a usable, general purpose > desktop operating system?" > > If the answer to that question is no, perhaps it's worth re-thinking this > change/feature/task. > > This comes down to project vs product. Your proposed mission change is a great mission for the desktop spin product. Not so great for the Fedora project as a whole. Our Project has a wide and broad mission that manifests itself into various products. One of the products is the Desktop spin which absolutely should have a more concise mission statement, one that more closely relates to an individuals needs and concerns. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 15:42:03 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:42:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:06 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > Have FESCo look at requiring approval for major version updates in the > > middle of a release or possibly banning them outright. This also has a > > side effect of fewer updates which many find desirable. This may end up > > working on the honor system but should be possible while not compromising > > our first mission objective. > > > > This could also be coupled with the experimental repo mentioned above to > > bring new packages to stable releases but only to those who accept the > > potential consequences and have enabled such a repo. > > This is what updates-testing is for. If it doesn't work in > updates-testing, you can just drop it on the floor. The problem is when > it gets promoted from -testing to updates. We do /not/ want a third > repo here, that makes the logistics balloon out of control. > This is not what updates testing is for. Stuff in updates testing for F11 is for packages that are, ultimately, destined for F-11. The experimental repo for F-11 would be for packages that are destined for F-12 if at all. Additionally stuff "working" in testing and being pushed to stable is the problem. The firefox example is a good example of this as is the thunderbird update mentioned on fedora-devel. Thunderbird should never have been pushed to F-11 under this proposal. The new thunderbird would be released and updated in the experimental repo. The old thunderbird would continue to get updates in F-11 proper. -Mike From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 15:44:15 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:44:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:06 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > = Mission Change = > > > > Right now our mission statements, as listed on the overview page are: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission > > > > * The Fedora Project always strives to lead, not follow. > > * The Fedora Project consistently seeks to create, improve, and spread > > free/libre code and content. > > * The Fedora Project succeeds through shared action on the part of > > many people throughout our community. > > > > == Problem 1: Too broad == > > > > The objectives above are incredibly broad. It's not even clear that we > > produce a Linux based distribution. Even though the Fedora Project does > > much more, our biggest feat at this time is the production of the Fedora > > operating system. > > > > == Solution 1: Define an additional mission == > > > > Adopt a new mission worded in an agreeable way similar to: > > > > "Produce a usable, general purpose desktop operating system" > > > > I feel this fundamental shift on the mission page is required. Our teams > > all do lots of different and valuable work. All of these teams are on a > > schedule based around our regular releases of the operating system. This > > will also give our contributors and leaders the ability to ask themselves: > > > > "Does this change/feature/task help produce a usable, general purpose > > desktop operating system?" > > > > If the answer to that question is no, perhaps it's worth re-thinking this > > change/feature/task. > > > > > > This comes down to project vs product. Your proposed mission change is > a great mission for the desktop spin product. Not so great for the > Fedora project as a whole. > Peoples complaint is with the Fedora product, adding this mission statement brings additional focus to that. > Our Project has a wide and broad mission that manifests itself into > various products. One of the products is the Desktop spin which > absolutely should have a more concise mission statement, one that more > closely relates to an individuals needs and concerns. > Take the word 'spin' off of there. The 'spins' aren't nearly as useful as we think they are. I can install a desktop without a 'spin' and it's still not as stable as it could be. -Mike From notting at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 16:15:01 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:15:01 -0400 Subject: Beta packages within stable releases In-Reply-To: References: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> Message-ID: <20091012161500.GB20758@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Mike McGrath (mmcgrath at redhat.com) said: > I personally prefer to have Thunderbird 3 and Firefox 3.5.3 on my desktop > because I understand when things are and aren't working right and can > communicate that to upstream. In my opinion if you require older versions > of these critically important software packages, there are other > distributions that offer it. For example the most recent version of > Ubuntu ships the 3.0.X tree of Firefox. So, looking at this: Firefox-3.5.x is the latest *stable* release of Firefox. The Thunderbird currently in F-11 updates is a beta version. I believe the two cases should likely be treated differently; the concerns about how the new Thunderbird completely changed the workflow and UI of the mailer is also something that doesn't seem appropriate for a released distro. Bill From notting at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 16:20:26 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:20:26 -0400 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <4AD100AD.1090404@math.unl.edu> References: <20091009210702.GA19689@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <4AD100AD.1090404@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20091012162026.GC20758@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Rex Dieter (rdieter at math.unl.edu) said: > > I think performing an experiment that switches all the defaults, > > invalidates the docs, walkthroughs, etc. and associated community > > knowledge is a *really bad idea* ... > > I consider it an important and valuable opportunity, to clarify, > improve, and expand upon all those things you mentioned, but color me a > glass-half-full kind of guy. The various different desktops do have different design goals and use cases; pretending otherwise is folly. If we decide that the use cases and users we want to target are better served by a particular desktop, then we *should* switch the default, and concentrate our resources there to put our best foot forward by default. But without making that decision, switching the defaults arbitrarily seems pointless and harmful to me. The tone of the suggestion seemed to be 'let's change the default, to prove that we can and our process works'. Is the 'process' really the goal here? I don't think it should be. Our goal should be producing useful software for our users; w ithout users, we're just an experiment. Bill From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 16:22:50 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:22:50 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 10:42 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > This is not what updates testing is for. Stuff in updates testing for F11 > is for packages that are, ultimately, destined for F-11. The experimental > repo for F-11 would be for packages that are destined for F-12 if at all. Isn't that what rawhide is for? If you're on F11, but want to test experimental stuff, well install it from rawhide. You'll get to keep all the pieces. If we're concerned about quality, I really don't think adding some weird mashup repos to the mix is going to help that at all. The more repos you throw out there, the more complex an environment may be and the complexity of the test matrix exponentially increases. > > Additionally stuff "working" in testing and being pushed to stable is the > problem. The firefox example is a good example of this as is the > thunderbird update mentioned on fedora-devel. Thunderbird should never > have been pushed to F-11 under this proposal. The new thunderbird would > be released and updated in the experimental repo. The old thunderbird > would continue to get updates in F-11 proper. This makes a big set of assumptions. A) the developer had foresight enough to see late changing highly disruptive UI changes in the future for the build. B) The beta period for thunderbird would last beyond the development period for Fedora 11. C) the developer had foresight enough to see that the older thunderbird code would remain usable and keep getting bug fixes. None of these is terribly good assumptions to make. In the particular thunderbird case, I think this whole mess would have been avoided if the maintainer had simply patched the F11 build to retain the previous UI defaults, while enabling the choice for interested people to experiment with the new options. The F12 (or F13 build by now) build would enable the new UI by default to match upstream. I really don't think we need to create a ton of extra repos and logistics issues to avoid a maintainer having to think a little bit about what it is they're updating and how it will effect users. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dennis at ausil.us Mon Oct 12 17:23:29 2009 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:23:29 -0500 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200910121223.36863.dennis@ausil.us> On Thursday 08 October 2009 01:33:35 pm Seth Vidal wrote: > Apropos (in a tangential way) our discussion today. And as a result of > some irc-discussions: > > Since the board defines which spin is the default spin then I suggest > the board Make the kde or xfce spin the default spin for F14. I would like to see us alternate between KDE and Gnome spins as the advertised one. i think that is fair to all. and recognoses the effort put in by both the gnome team and the kde SIG. or we could evaluate on a per release basis depending on which spin per release pushes things the furtherest to advance Fedoras foundations. > It won't hurt users upgrading b/c they are just upgrading. > And users reinstalling are reinstalling. > > It makes it clear that the spins process is serious and f'real and it will > test how well our processes work. > > And if we have stunning success then the board re-evals the default spin > again. > > thoughts? I personally like the idea. Dennis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From poelstra at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 17:34:33 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:34:33 -0700 Subject: Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal In-Reply-To: <20091012162026.GC20758@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <20091009210702.GA19689@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <4AD100AD.1090404@math.unl.edu> <20091012162026.GC20758@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AD368A9.9030804@redhat.com> Bill Nottingham said the following on 10/12/2009 09:20 AM Pacific Time: > Rex Dieter (rdieter at math.unl.edu) said: >>> I think performing an experiment that switches all the defaults, >>> invalidates the docs, walkthroughs, etc. and associated community >>> knowledge is a *really bad idea* ... >> I consider it an important and valuable opportunity, to clarify, >> improve, and expand upon all those things you mentioned, but color me a >> glass-half-full kind of guy. > > The various different desktops do have different design goals and > use cases; pretending otherwise is folly. If we decide that the use > cases and users we want to target are better served by a particular > desktop, then we *should* switch the default, and concentrate our resources > there to put our best foot forward by default. But without making that > decision, switching the defaults arbitrarily seems pointless and > harmful to me. The tone of the suggestion seemed to be 'let's change > the default, to prove that we can and our process works'. Is the 'process' > really the goal here? I don't think it should be. Our goal should be > producing useful software for our users; w ithout users, we're just an > experiment. > > Bill > I completely agree with Bill's line of reasoning here. John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 18:26:25 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:26:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 10:42 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > This is not what updates testing is for. Stuff in updates testing for F11 > > is for packages that are, ultimately, destined for F-11. The experimental > > repo for F-11 would be for packages that are destined for F-12 if at all. > > Isn't that what rawhide is for? If you're on F11, but want to test > experimental stuff, well install it from rawhide. You'll get to keep > all the pieces. If we're concerned about quality, I really don't think > adding some weird mashup repos to the mix is going to help that at all. > The more repos you throw out there, the more complex an environment may > be and the complexity of the test matrix exponentially increases. > Once it's in rawhide, it'll end up in F12 no matter what we do. Even if it was a mistake. That's a separate issue from doing major updates in F-11. Perhaps this whole need / niche market (wanting a stable desktop + a couple of selected updates from my suggested experimental repo) will disappear when rawhide isn't so messy. But if I am concerned about quality, and if doing weird mashup repos that provide stable software for all and less stable software for those that want it isn't going to help. What is? > > > > Additionally stuff "working" in testing and being pushed to stable is the > > problem. The firefox example is a good example of this as is the > > thunderbird update mentioned on fedora-devel. Thunderbird should never > > have been pushed to F-11 under this proposal. The new thunderbird would > > be released and updated in the experimental repo. The old thunderbird > > would continue to get updates in F-11 proper. > > This makes a big set of assumptions. A) the developer had foresight > enough to see late changing highly disruptive UI changes in the future > for the build. B) The beta period for thunderbird would last beyond the > development period for Fedora 11. C) the developer had foresight enough > to see that the older thunderbird code would remain usable and keep > getting bug fixes. None of these is terribly good assumptions to make. > But had we made them, it's possible the broken Firefox and newer thunderbird wouldn't be in F-11 right now and it would have provided a better experience for our users. There are certainly problems with my proposal but I've not seen any alternatives. Even if this suggestion wouldn't have done it, what would have? We have no way to fix mistakes we make. > In the particular thunderbird case, I think this whole mess would have > been avoided if the maintainer had simply patched the F11 build to > retain the previous UI defaults, while enabling the choice for > interested people to experiment with the new options. The F12 (or F13 > build by now) build would enable the new UI by default to match > upstream. I really don't think we need to create a ton of extra repos > and logistics issues to avoid a maintainer having to think a little bit > about what it is they're updating and how it will effect users. > In this particular thunderbird case and in all packages we have no procedure in place to determine what might be right, what might be wrong and how to fix mistakes. I think there's a strong argument that thunderbird should not have been updated in F-11. But we can't fault the packager because they were likely doing what they thought was best. They had no direction on whether to update it or not. And no options to bring an updated thunderbird to F-11 while leaving the old one alone. -Mike From rdieter at math.unl.edu Mon Oct 12 18:32:02 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:32:02 -0500 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4AD37622.4010802@math.unl.edu> On 10/12/2009 01:26 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Once it's in rawhide, it'll end up in F12 no matter what we do. Not necessarily. Reversions can and do happen (packaging-wise, usually involves Epochs). -- Rex From stickster at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 18:37:33 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:37:33 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091012183733.GN10453@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:22:50AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 10:42 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > This is not what updates testing is for. Stuff in updates testing for F11 > > is for packages that are, ultimately, destined for F-11. The experimental > > repo for F-11 would be for packages that are destined for F-12 if at all. > > Isn't that what rawhide is for? If you're on F11, but want to test > experimental stuff, well install it from rawhide. You'll get to keep > all the pieces. If we're concerned about quality, I really don't think > adding some weird mashup repos to the mix is going to help that at all. > The more repos you throw out there, the more complex an environment may > be and the complexity of the test matrix exponentially increases. Do you agree that our test coverage would improve if all the following happened? * One or more experimental branches were offered beyond Rawhide for daily work that might break critical path; * Rawhide itself -- at least the critical path -- was allowed to break less in general so it was installable more often over a cycle; and * Our releases, once they arrive as GA, restricted updates to a degree determined by FESCo to help maintain a more stable distro for our target user This might allow us to have a clearer separation from the product we push to everyone (including less experienced users), and the branch that our developers often install/run (when they can!). As a result, regular contributors and power users might be able to migrate over to using Rawhide more often and as a result benefit the stable release through more regular testing, rather than waiting for some population of testers to download an Alpha or a Beta. I'm not trying to drag the discussion away from the suggestion above. Rather, I wanted to counter-suggest that a three-pronged (stable, development, unstable) approach could work to better attain our goals. However, doing this obviously would require FESCo support and leadership over policy, some engineering work to rearrange these branches (?), and of course the general agreement that this was a worthwhile pursuit. I do agree that in this scenario, someone who wanted more latest-and-greatest should still update a package subset to Rawhide, and they would continue to have a reasonable chance of things working day to day -- which is not necessarily the case right now. Of course, it could be a concern that Rawhide wouldn't move as fast or in concert if we had everyone doing private work, but I think there's a chance for us to do something innovative in terms of how that work is managed -- in other words, something like git for Rawhide++ (where Rawhide++ is the $TOTALLY_SCARY_RAWHIDE seen in bullet one above). -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From poelstra at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 18:38:19 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:38:19 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <4AD37622.4010802@math.unl.edu> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4AD37622.4010802@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <4AD3779B.3020701@redhat.com> Rex Dieter said the following on 10/12/2009 11:32 AM Pacific Time: > On 10/12/2009 01:26 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > >> Once it's in rawhide, it'll end up in F12 no matter what we do. > > Not necessarily. Reversions can and do happen (packaging-wise, usually > involves Epochs). > I've been told it is "possible", but often the hassle of unwinding something that should not be there is there is deemed "too much work" compared the the alternative of leaving it there. We've been in this situation a few times already for Fedora 12. I realize the new rawhide proposal is supposed to fix this problem, but until it is implemented and live I'm wary of portraying it as the solution that will truly fix everything. I don't think Fedora has had anything like that yet in its history, nor would I expect it to. John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 18:39:15 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:39:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <4AD37622.4010802@math.unl.edu> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4AD37622.4010802@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Rex Dieter wrote: > On 10/12/2009 01:26 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > Once it's in rawhide, it'll end up in F12 no matter what we do. > > Not necessarily. Reversions can and do happen (packaging-wise, usually > involves Epochs). > That's a technical solution, and one listed in my paper as something people generally hate. But there's no procedure to actually do it. No precedence to even determine if it should be done, no review process, no one second guessing so it never gets done. I'm talking about a fundamental change about the way we do things here. Not "throw it in rawhide first" but instead "try it in rawhide first". -Mike From bruno at wolff.to Mon Oct 12 19:50:29 2009 From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:50:29 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091012195029.GA17174@wolff.to> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 21:11:41 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > > (a) Define a target audience for the Fedora distribution (or maybe > narrow the definition to "default spin")--without a clear target > audience for our product there is a lack of clarity around when we > are "done." It also makes it difficult to make decisions about > release quality and release composition. I am a project member that is interested in system adminstration, network administration and games. I also believe that free software is a better way to create software in many cases, especially for (software) infrastructure. Fedora is a very good fit for me. I am currently the maintainer for the Games Spin, the colossus and glest packages. My initial interest in becoming a developer was related to trying to get colossus packaged to add it into a custom games spin. I got side tracked into first becoming the Games Spin maintainer because when I asked some questions about problems building a livedvd with the existing Games Spin KS file people said we need a Games Spin maintainer and you should volunteer. I mention this story because I have seen people in this thread say you can't control volunteer developers. I disagree. For at least some subset of Fedora's project members there is more in Fedora that they could work on then they have time to do. (See also the Josh Boyer case.) These people are likely to respond to leadership that says such and such areas of the project are more important than others. That certainly applies to me. I think that we want to target people who have a reasonable chance to become contributors (whether that's code, art, documentation, process management or whatever). Acquiring new users has a cost, particularly acquiring ones for which "just works" overrides free and patent unencumbered. More new users means more questions and more downloads. We want this offset by something else. Maybe it is in people becoming contributors or maybe it is in terms of sponsors giving the project money, hardware or network bandwidth. > (b) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Distirbution > to look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. > What should those be? I wish that the graphics cards would get more support. This is an area where I can't help much other than to file bug reports. This impacts me personally in making the Games Spin harder to test and less functional and prevents me from playing some games. I think this also hurts us with the "just works" crowd. Unlike the situation with codecs this is something we can do something about in the short run. Things are slowly changing, but it would be nice if it happened faster. > (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Fedora Project > to look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. > What should those be? I would like to see more direction set. I would like it to be easier to find out where help is needed. On the packager side this information seems to be generic. Though there are some wish lists out there (for example for games that people would like packaged) there are priorities attached to them. Maybe there already is better information for other areas of the project. > (d) Set a goal of five things we believe should be improved or fixed > by the release of Fedora 13 that will make the Fedora Distribution a > better product or the Fedora Project a stronger community. What > should those things be? I think that with some additional resources the graphics situation could be much better. While the radeon and intel drivers will probably be pretty good by F13, I would be surprised if the nouveau driver had 3D enabled in F13 with the current development pace. I'd like to see some more resources devoted to leadership in the Spins SIG. kararip is spread pretty thin and for various reasons none of the other regulars seems interested in assuming larger roles in that group. For myself I want to develop test cases for QA for the Games Spin. From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 21:38:47 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:38:47 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 10:44 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > This comes down to project vs product. Your proposed mission change is > > a great mission for the desktop spin product. Not so great for the > > Fedora project as a whole. > > > > Peoples complaint is with the Fedora product, adding this mission > statement brings additional focus to that. > > > Our Project has a wide and broad mission that manifests itself into > > various products. One of the products is the Desktop spin which > > absolutely should have a more concise mission statement, one that more > > closely relates to an individuals needs and concerns. > > > > Take the word 'spin' off of there. The 'spins' aren't nearly as useful as > we think they are. I can install a desktop without a 'spin' and it's > still not as stable as it could be. > > You can install a desktop without a spin because we allow people to do installs from the giant pile of packages and to choose their own adventure. Whether you call it a "spin" or a 'product' or an 'offering', the specific grouping that we use to make up the Fedora Desktop is the first and foremost offering and one that has a specific mission statement. That shouldn't prevent another spin or product or offering from having a different, even conflicting mission statement. All should fit within the global Fedora /Project/ mission statement. Contributors care about the project mission statement, and to some degree a product or two. End users would care mostly about the product mission statement, maybe later care about the project mission statement. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 21:45:50 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:45:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 10:44 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > This comes down to project vs product. Your proposed mission change is > > > a great mission for the desktop spin product. Not so great for the > > > Fedora project as a whole. > > > > > > > Peoples complaint is with the Fedora product, adding this mission > > statement brings additional focus to that. > > > > > Our Project has a wide and broad mission that manifests itself into > > > various products. One of the products is the Desktop spin which > > > absolutely should have a more concise mission statement, one that more > > > closely relates to an individuals needs and concerns. > > > > > > > Take the word 'spin' off of there. The 'spins' aren't nearly as useful as > > we think they are. I can install a desktop without a 'spin' and it's > > still not as stable as it could be. > > > > > > You can install a desktop without a spin because we allow people to do > installs from the giant pile of packages and to choose their own > adventure. > > Whether you call it a "spin" or a 'product' or an 'offering', the > specific grouping that we use to make up the Fedora Desktop is the first > and foremost offering and one that has a specific mission statement. > That shouldn't prevent another spin or product or offering from having a > different, even conflicting mission statement. All should fit within > the global Fedora /Project/ mission statement. Contributors care about > the project mission statement, and to some degree a product or two. End > users would care mostly about the product mission statement, maybe later > care about the project mission statement. > That's kind of my point. Our project mission statement makes no indication of what we actually do or that we even have a product at all. Being involved in Fedora it seems fairly obvious to me that one of the things the Fedora Project does is produce the Fedora OS product. I picked desktop specifically because that seems to be overwhelmingly what people are looking for. -Mike From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 21:54:37 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:54:37 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1255384477.4148.361.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 13:26 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > Once it's in rawhide, it'll end up in F12 no matter what we do. Even if > it was a mistake. That's not true. A rollback + epoch can be done in cases where it is deemed the "going backwards" will cause less harm than "trudging forward". > That's a separate issue from doing major updates in > F-11. Perhaps this whole need / niche market (wanting a stable desktop + > a couple of selected updates from my suggested experimental repo) will > disappear when rawhide isn't so messy. > > But if I am concerned about quality, and if doing weird mashup repos that > provide stable software for all and less stable software for those that > want it isn't going to help. What is? If you're concerned about quality, we need to shift the desires of packagers away from always having the latest software and into a more conservative approach to our packaging, avoiding picking up beta releases of software, or betas that aren't expected to go "final" before we ship which ever distro we're working on at the time. Adding more repos for people to potentially push things, and more buildroot confusion makes it /harder/ to test things, not easier. > > > > > > > Additionally stuff "working" in testing and being pushed to stable is the > > > problem. The firefox example is a good example of this as is the > > > thunderbird update mentioned on fedora-devel. Thunderbird should never > > > have been pushed to F-11 under this proposal. The new thunderbird would > > > be released and updated in the experimental repo. The old thunderbird > > > would continue to get updates in F-11 proper. > > > > This makes a big set of assumptions. A) the developer had foresight > > enough to see late changing highly disruptive UI changes in the future > > for the build. B) The beta period for thunderbird would last beyond the > > development period for Fedora 11. C) the developer had foresight enough > > to see that the older thunderbird code would remain usable and keep > > getting bug fixes. None of these is terribly good assumptions to make. > > > > But had we made them, it's possible the broken Firefox and newer > thunderbird wouldn't be in F-11 right now and it would have provided a > better experience for our users. There are certainly problems with my > proposal but I've not seen any alternatives. Even if this suggestion > wouldn't have done it, what would have? We have no way to fix mistakes we > make. If we had them, what's to stop the maintainer from getting good feedback on the experimental repo, and pushing it along to the stable repo, given that it's the only upstream code getting work? > > > In the particular thunderbird case, I think this whole mess would have > > been avoided if the maintainer had simply patched the F11 build to > > retain the previous UI defaults, while enabling the choice for > > interested people to experiment with the new options. The F12 (or F13 > > build by now) build would enable the new UI by default to match > > upstream. I really don't think we need to create a ton of extra repos > > and logistics issues to avoid a maintainer having to think a little bit > > about what it is they're updating and how it will effect users. > > > > In this particular thunderbird case and in all packages we have no > procedure in place to determine what might be right, what might be wrong > and how to fix mistakes. I think there's a strong argument that > thunderbird should not have been updated in F-11. But we can't fault the > packager because they were likely doing what they thought was best. They > had no direction on whether to update it or not. And no options to bring > an updated thunderbird to F-11 while leaving the old one alone. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines if followed, would have gone a long way to prevent the thunderbird situation. This is a people/policy issue, not a technical issue. In my opinion, thunderbird /should/ have been updated, however it should have been modified to retain the old UI style, as opposed to forcing the new UI on all existing users. You can most certainly bring a new thunderbird to updates-testing, and just leave it there. Those who want it can get it there. Trying to keep both a new thunderbird up to sync as well as continue to do bugfix releases on the "old" thunderbird runs into a lot of problems though, starting at the source control level. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 22:13:45 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:13:45 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091012183733.GN10453@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091012183733.GN10453@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <1255385625.4148.380.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 14:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Do you agree that our test coverage would improve if all the following > happened? > > * One or more experimental branches were offered beyond Rawhide for > daily work that might break critical path; Each added repo increases the test matrix exponentially. More repos frankly == less likelihood of getting QA coverage. Once we've frozen rawhide and are ready to polish it into a release, an updates-testing repo for the pending release makes sense. Allow people to propose freeze breaks, test them across a wide audience, and eventually push them into the pending release (or drop them on the floor). It does get hard though if you want to push say a new gecko stack, and have to rebuild 15~ packages along the way, then have to roll them back somehow. > > * Rawhide itself -- at least the critical path -- was allowed to break > less in general so it was installable more often over a cycle; and Of course this would improve QA coverage, however you need QA coverage to prevent the breakage. That's like saying "Would me giving you more money improve your lack of money situation?" > > * Our releases, once they arrive as GA, restricted updates to a degree > determined by FESCo to help maintain a more stable distro for our > target user While I'd like to see a "calming" effect on our updates, perhaps it really only matters for the critical path, changes that everybody sees, but not across every package in the distribution. One size policy, while it's easier to write down, doesn't fit all very well :/ > > This might allow us to have a clearer separation from the product we > push to everyone (including less experienced users), and the branch > that our developers often install/run (when they can!). As a result, > regular contributors and power users might be able to migrate over to > using Rawhide more often and as a result benefit the stable release > through more regular testing, rather than waiting for some population > of testers to download an Alpha or a Beta. > > I'm not trying to drag the discussion away from the suggestion above. > Rather, I wanted to counter-suggest that a three-pronged (stable, > development, unstable) approach could work to better attain our goals. > However, doing this obviously would require FESCo support and > leadership over policy, some engineering work to rearrange these > branches (?), and of course the general agreement that this was a > worthwhile pursuit. This is essentially the no frozen rawhide proposal that has already been acked by FESCo. Rawhide is every moving, never stopping, "unstable". We branch it away at some point (feature freeze) and start polishing it up for a release. Some development is going on, fixing bugs in features, etc.. This is "testing". It'll eventually turn into the "stable" release. I can't very well ascii draw this. > > I do agree that in this scenario, someone who wanted more > latest-and-greatest should still update a package subset to Rawhide, > and they would continue to have a reasonable chance of things working > day to day -- which is not necessarily the case right now. > > Of course, it could be a concern that Rawhide wouldn't move as fast or > in concert if we had everyone doing private work, but I think there's a > chance for us to do something innovative in terms of how that work is > managed -- in other words, something like git for Rawhide++ (where > Rawhide++ is the $TOTALLY_SCARY_RAWHIDE seen in bullet one above). > > I think many people are struggling with the duality that is the repo we call "rawhide". For a period of time it is a repo where wild and crazy changes happen and experimentation is done. Then suddenly we throw a switch and expect all that to settle down and to start treating rawhide the repo as a stabilization point for all those wild changes. Then we throw another switch and expect rawhide to slow way down and basically halt as we test and polish it up for a release. That's a lot of different ways to treat a single repo of packages. That's why the no frozen rawhide proposal breaks that up. rawhide the path is always rawhide. Always wild and crazy, always moving forward. We create a new repo for the pending release (and give it a updates-testing like repo for proposed changes for the pending release). This allows us to slow down and stabilize without losing the benefit of wild and crazy change in rawhide. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 22:16:45 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:16:45 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 16:45 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > That's kind of my point. Our project mission statement makes no > indication of what we actually do or that we even have a product at all. > Being involved in Fedora it seems fairly obvious to me that one of the > things the Fedora Project does is produce the Fedora OS product. I picked > desktop specifically because that seems to be overwhelmingly what people > are looking for. What "people" though? If we're concerned about new users finding Fedora and thinking they would like to use our distro, pointing them to our /project/ mission statement is entirely wrong. Pointing them to the /product/ page for a Desktop spin, or KDE spin, or Education spin is entirely right. If we're talking about contributors, then the product page isn't quite for them. The project page is more about why we are doing these things, why we are producing the various products and what purpose the entire thing serves. Simply put, the Project page should not be the landing page for users. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 22:18:45 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:18:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 16:45 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > That's kind of my point. Our project mission statement makes no > > indication of what we actually do or that we even have a product at all. > > Being involved in Fedora it seems fairly obvious to me that one of the > > things the Fedora Project does is produce the Fedora OS product. I picked > > desktop specifically because that seems to be overwhelmingly what people > > are looking for. > > What "people" though? If we're concerned about new users finding Fedora > and thinking they would like to use our distro, pointing them to > our /project/ mission statement is entirely wrong. Pointing them to > the /product/ page for a Desktop spin, or KDE spin, or Education spin is > entirely right. > > If we're talking about contributors, then the product page isn't quite > for them. The project page is more about why we are doing these things, > why we are producing the various products and what purpose the entire > thing serves. > > Simply put, the Project page should not be the landing page for users. > Agreed, it should be the page that directs our contributors. To create a usable, general purpose desktop. -Mike From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 22:25:57 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:25:57 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:18 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > Agreed, it should be the page that directs our contributors. Yes, we agree on the above. > To create a > usable, general purpose desktop. > > No we do not agree on this. The Fedora Project's mission isn't just to create a general purpose desktop. Not by a long shot. By saying that at a /project/ level you basically tell every person out there that wants to work on making servers better, or wants to develop good documentation for software, or wants to create artwork, or wants to do anything that isn't a "general purpose desktop" to piss off and find another project. I don't think that will result in more contributors coming to Fedora. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 22:28:53 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:28:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:18 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > Agreed, it should be the page that directs our contributors. > > Yes, we agree on the above. > > > To create a > > usable, general purpose desktop. > > > > > > No we do not agree on this. The Fedora Project's mission isn't just to > create a general purpose desktop. Not by a long shot. By saying that > at a /project/ level you basically tell every person out there that > wants to work on making servers better, or wants to develop good > documentation for software, or wants to create artwork, or wants to do > anything that isn't a "general purpose desktop" to piss off and find > another project. I don't think that will result in more contributors > coming to Fedora. > So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and just add one? Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of the Fedora Project? -Mike From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 22:45:31 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:45:31 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1255387531.4148.387.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and > just add one? Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to > build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of > the Fedora Project? > > Let me ask it a different way. What do we accomplish by narrowing down the entire project's focus in an exclusionary way to a single product? -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From inode0 at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 22:59:24 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:59:24 -0500 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and > just add one? ?Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to > build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of > the Fedora Project? Here is what I believe is Red Hat's mission statement: "To be the catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners creating better technology the open source way." They don't think that an enterprise server operating system is worth mentioning? Details like this are a trap and should be avoided. John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 23:03:07 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:03:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and > > just add one? ?Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to > > build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of > > the Fedora Project? > > Here is what I believe is Red Hat's mission statement: "To be the > catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners > creating better technology the open source way." > > They don't think that an enterprise server operating system is worth mentioning? > > Details like this are a trap and should be avoided. > The management at Red hat don't let the engineers do whatever they want all willy nilly. As such they don't have as many issues figuring out what they showed up to do that day. Trap or not, it's guidance. Anyway, I'll get back to creating free code and content, whatever the hell that is. -Mike From poelstra at redhat.com Mon Oct 12 23:08:57 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:08:57 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255387531.4148.387.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255387531.4148.387.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4AD3B709.90806@redhat.com> Jesse Keating said the following on 10/12/2009 03:45 PM Pacific Time: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >> So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and >> just add one? Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to >> build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of >> the Fedora Project? >> >> > > Let me ask it a different way. What do we accomplish by narrowing down > the entire project's focus in an exclusionary way to a single product? > Why do the words "exclude" and "exclusionary" keep getting added to this discussion? Where is this language used in any of the proposals that have been brought forth so far? Just because we want to "focus" on a certain aspect does not mean we are explicitly or implicitly "excluding" or "disallowing" all the others. John From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Mon Oct 12 23:19:18 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhaXLDrW4gRHVmZnk=?=) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:19:18 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255387531.4148.387.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255387531.4148.387.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4AD3B976.9070005@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/12/2009 06:45 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: >> >> So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and >> just add one? Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to >> build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of >> the Fedora Project? > Let me ask it a different way. What do we accomplish by narrowing down > the entire project's focus in an exclusionary way to a single product? I have a couple of issues with your question as you posed it: "Narrowing down the entire project's focus" I wouldn't say we're narrowing down the entire project's focus. Rather, I think we should define the project's external face to the world, since it is right now rather confusing to an outsider. "In an exclusionary way" I'm not sure where anybody has proposed exclusion. I've proposed having different places for different things, so rather than having a big bucket of random things, kicking that over to external folks looking at is, and telling them "have fun".... we have a bucket here for 'desktop product', a bucket here for 'custom built alternative desktops and OS spins', a bucket here for 'getting involved in the community.' Because the very word "Fedora" is ambiguous - it could mean a number of things to different people. Now, the idea behind focusing on a single product to dub 'the Fedora' I believe could help us have a consistent message - Fedora is this OS. The Fedora community is the organization that makes it happen, but they do a lot of other cool stuff you can learn about. FWIW I think there are a lot of organizations that have a product that gets them exposure / brand recognition that they then use to get interest/support for another cause. A couple of examples I can think of: Girl Scout cookies, Newman's Own food products. (Newman's Own is actually a non-profit organization that donates all their profits to charities) I'm quite confident there are others but I'm having trouble coming up with more examples at the moment. ~m From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Mon Oct 12 23:24:04 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:24:04 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4AD3BA94.8040706@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/12/2009 07:03 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: >>> So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and >>> just add one? Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to >>> build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of >>> the Fedora Project? >> >> Here is what I believe is Red Hat's mission statement: "To be the >> catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners >> creating better technology the open source way." >> >> They don't think that an enterprise server operating system is worth mentioning? >> >> Details like this are a trap and should be avoided. >> > The management at Red hat don't let the engineers do whatever they want > all willy nilly. As such they don't have as many issues figuring out what > they showed up to do that day. Trap or not, it's guidance. Vision statement, mission statement, strategery, yadda yadda - I think John's point is more, mission is *why* you want to do it. But a general purpose desktop is *what* you want to do. E.g., if our mission is to create free code and content, we would do it using the vehicle of creating a general purpose desktop. But our goal in life isn't to build desktops, it's to create free code and content. There's other *things* we could *do* to accomplish that mission, it's just the desktop is one of the vehicles in which we chose to do it. > Anyway, I'll get back to creating free code and content, whatever the hell > that is. I think you've done a great job trying to document some of the ideas floating in this uber thread and coming up with a tangible proposal to move forward. I hope you continue in the discussion. :( ~m From inode0 at gmail.com Mon Oct 12 23:35:09 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:35:09 -0500 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: >> > So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and >> > just add one? ?Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to >> > build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of >> > the Fedora Project? >> >> Here is what I believe is Red Hat's mission statement: "To be the >> catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners >> creating better technology the open source way." >> >> They don't think that an enterprise server operating system is worth mentioning? >> >> Details like this are a trap and should be avoided. >> > > The management at Red hat don't let the engineers do whatever they want > all willy nilly. ?As such they don't have as many issues figuring out what > they showed up to do that day. ?Trap or not, it's guidance. > > Anyway, I'll get back to creating free code and content, whatever the hell > that is. And I think that free code and content is just as important to our mission. John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 00:40:49 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:40:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > >> > So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and > >> > just add one? ?Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to > >> > build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of > >> > the Fedora Project? > >> > >> Here is what I believe is Red Hat's mission statement: "To be the > >> catalyst in communities of customers, contributors, and partners > >> creating better technology the open source way." > >> > >> They don't think that an enterprise server operating system is worth mentioning? > >> > >> Details like this are a trap and should be avoided. > >> > > > > The management at Red hat don't let the engineers do whatever they want > > all willy nilly. ?As such they don't have as many issues figuring out what > > they showed up to do that day. ?Trap or not, it's guidance. > > > > Anyway, I'll get back to creating free code and content, whatever the hell > > that is. > > And I think that free code and content is just as important to our mission. > And I think not all free code and content is good free code and content: http://mmcgrath.fedorapeople.org/FREE -Mike From smooge at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 00:46:03 2009 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:46:03 -0600 Subject: What I would like to see for Fedora 15. Message-ID: <80d7e4090910121746n53f451dfi96a6092b80f129c5@mail.gmail.com> I have been reading the various threads and trying not to comment too much as I am not sure what exactly I would accomplish. Then a little gurgle in the back of the brain finally percolated up from the various proposals... In the flashy days of the first Web Wars (1995-1997), one of the books that every 'visionary' startup person had to read and at least comment on was Geoffrey More's "Crossing the Chasm". While this book has its faults and has been passed over by "The Cluetrain Manifesto", "Who Moved My Cheese", or "Death By A Thousand Tickets, The Smoogen Story".. it does have its point on the Technology Adoption LifeCycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Technology-Adoption-Lifecycle.png The background theory is that groups usually fall into 5-7 subgroups with various gaps between them. The gap Moore focused on was that between visionary innovators and pragmatic early adopters. You can see this chasm in between say BeOS where there was a lot of Buzz but it never got enough pragmatic support to sustain itself into later groups. So what does this have to do with Fedora? Well I realized that in many ways Fedora's job is to help throw things across that chasm to see if it can land on the other side. Sometimes things will and sometimes they will fall down but our job is to throw with all our might. The big arguments currently are really about "How can we design a better throwing tool?" Some of the approaches are quite radical and some are more lazy-fairy like... but in the end its more about how to build that device. And now to my proposition (if you are still here and haven't hit Del). I would like for us to focus on 1-3 things for say 3 releases. A SIG would propose a set of goals of what they want to see in 18 months and how they believe it will be accomplished. Then the focus of the next 3 releases is on reaching those goals. Somebody (or bodies) would choose which 3 proposals are going to get focused on (I was thinking a cascading solution would be best so say 1 gets 13,14,15; 2 would 14,15,16 and 3 would start 15,16,17 and 4 would be 18,19,20. This allows for us to better understand our future and allow for things to get done in achievable ways. I hope this makes sense, and hopefully makes things better. -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning From inode0 at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 01:08:22 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:08:22 -0500 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: >> > Anyway, I'll get back to creating free code and content, whatever the hell >> > that is. >> >> And I think that free code and content is just as important to our mission. >> > > And I think not all free code and content is good free code and content: > > http://mmcgrath.fedorapeople.org/FREE I guess this means we are finished being serious now but a free infrastructure for the project is as important as a nice desktop to me. My comment was intended to be a compliment. John From tburke at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 01:21:02 2009 From: tburke at redhat.com (Tim Burke) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:21:02 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4AD3D5FE.1070803@redhat.com> I think the term "desktop" in this sentence: "Produce a usable, general purpose desktop operating system" is a lightening rod in the conversation. This proposal really isn't at all about desktop. Rather it is about improving release stability for end users. You can just as well remove the word desktop in that mission statement, leaving a general purpose OS. From nigjones at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 07:02:13 2009 From: nigjones at redhat.com (Nigel Jones) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255387531.4148.387.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <8328845.61255417327574.JavaMail.nigjones@njones.bne.redhat.com> ----- "Jesse Keating" wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the > paper, and > > just add one? Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying > to > > build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission > of > > the Fedora Project? > > > > > > Let me ask it a different way. What do we accomplish by narrowing > down > the entire project's focus in an exclusionary way to a single > product? Guys, Let's just remove the word "Desktop" and say something like: "To build a free and stable distribution (read Releases) for all users of Fedora." This covers people that want stability in servers, desktops and anything in between and still keeps everything open for spins etc to make the 'flavours' that they want to (Server, Desktop, KDE....). - Nigel From stickster at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 13:11:37 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:11:37 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255385625.4148.380.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091012183733.GN10453@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1255385625.4148.380.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091013131137.GA10172@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:13:45PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 14:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > > Do you agree that our test coverage would improve if all the following > > happened? > > > > * One or more experimental branches were offered beyond Rawhide for > > daily work that might break critical path; > > Each added repo increases the test matrix exponentially. More repos > frankly == less likelihood of getting QA coverage. Once we've frozen > rawhide and are ready to polish it into a release, an updates-testing > repo for the pending release makes sense. Allow people to propose > freeze breaks, test them across a wide audience, and eventually push > them into the pending release (or drop them on the floor). It does get > hard though if you want to push say a new gecko stack, and have to > rebuild 15~ packages along the way, then have to roll them back somehow. These experimental branches are not intended for test matrix coverage. They'd be purely for the developers to have WIPs that aren't ready for public consumption. > > * Rawhide itself -- at least the critical path -- was allowed to break > > less in general so it was installable more often over a cycle; and > > Of course this would improve QA coverage, however you need QA coverage > to prevent the breakage. That's like saying "Would me giving you more > money improve your lack of money situation?" I guess this goes hand in hand with the previous bullet. If, for example, a developer working on nautilus or glibc has changes in progress and is working on those in a personal experimental package branch, Rawhide itself would be more likely to run day to day. Someone working on Bluetooth would be more able to live on Rawhide, again, working on their stack in a personal experimental branch of some sort. > > * Our releases, once they arrive as GA, restricted updates to a degree > > determined by FESCo to help maintain a more stable distro for our > > target user > > While I'd like to see a "calming" effect on our updates, perhaps it > really only matters for the critical path, changes that everybody sees, > but not across every package in the distribution. One size policy, > while it's easier to write down, doesn't fit all very well :/ I agree that there are probably thousands of edge packages that wouldn't really need to be covered. > > This might allow us to have a clearer separation from the product we > > push to everyone (including less experienced users), and the branch > > that our developers often install/run (when they can!). As a result, > > regular contributors and power users might be able to migrate over to > > using Rawhide more often and as a result benefit the stable release > > through more regular testing, rather than waiting for some population > > of testers to download an Alpha or a Beta. > > > > I'm not trying to drag the discussion away from the suggestion above. > > Rather, I wanted to counter-suggest that a three-pronged (stable, > > development, unstable) approach could work to better attain our goals. > > However, doing this obviously would require FESCo support and > > leadership over policy, some engineering work to rearrange these > > branches (?), and of course the general agreement that this was a > > worthwhile pursuit. > > This is essentially the no frozen rawhide proposal that has already been > acked by FESCo. Rawhide is every moving, never stopping, "unstable". > We branch it away at some point (feature freeze) and start polishing it > up for a release. Some development is going on, fixing bugs in > features, etc.. This is "testing". It'll eventually turn into the > "stable" release. I can't very well ascii draw this. Not really -- the No Frozen Rawhide proposal doesn't yield any more potential stability until after the first freeze point when it takes effect. What I'm talking about above would potentially provide a Rawhide that was more often installable and usable throughout the cycle. > > I do agree that in this scenario, someone who wanted more > > latest-and-greatest should still update a package subset to Rawhide, > > and they would continue to have a reasonable chance of things working > > day to day -- which is not necessarily the case right now. > > > > Of course, it could be a concern that Rawhide wouldn't move as fast or > > in concert if we had everyone doing private work, but I think there's a > > chance for us to do something innovative in terms of how that work is > > managed -- in other words, something like git for Rawhide++ (where > > Rawhide++ is the $TOTALLY_SCARY_RAWHIDE seen in bullet one above). > > I think many people are struggling with the duality that is the repo we > call "rawhide". For a period of time it is a repo where wild and crazy > changes happen and experimentation is done. Then suddenly we throw a > switch and expect all that to settle down and to start treating rawhide > the repo as a stabilization point for all those wild changes. Then we > throw another switch and expect rawhide to slow way down and basically > halt as we test and polish it up for a release. That's a lot of > different ways to treat a single repo of packages. > > That's why the no frozen rawhide proposal breaks that up. rawhide the > path is always rawhide. Always wild and crazy, always moving forward. > We create a new repo for the pending release (and give it a > updates-testing like repo for proposed changes for the pending release). > This allows us to slow down and stabilize without losing the benefit of > wild and crazy change in rawhide. I agree that NFR potentially does this after the first freeze point, see above. -- 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 jbwillia at math.vt.edu Tue Oct 13 13:47:52 2009 From: jbwillia at math.vt.edu (Ben Williams) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:47:52 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091013131137.GA10172@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091012183733.GN10453@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1255385625.4148.380.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091013131137.GA10172@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4AD48508.2050504@math.vt.edu> I personally agree with what Mike said at the beginning of what the issues he was trying to address. As usual when trying to do something by committee however everything else is getting pulled in. As one of the frontline people at several linux events i have heard the same complaints that Mike was trying to address. If we have a stable desktop that will increase the userbase and hopefully get more people involved as contributors in one form or another. my .02 > -- Ben Williams Windows-Linux Specialist 460 McBryde Hall Blacksburg VA 24061-0123 540 231-2739 From notting at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 14:55:32 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:55:32 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <8328845.61255417327574.JavaMail.nigjones@njones.bne.redhat.com> References: <1255387531.4148.387.camel@localhost.localdomain> <8328845.61255417327574.JavaMail.nigjones@njones.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091013145532.GA12777@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Nigel Jones (nigjones at redhat.com) said: > Let's just remove the word "Desktop" and say something like: > > "To build a free and stable distribution (read Releases) for all users of Fedora." > > This covers people that want stability in servers, desktops and anything in between and still keeps everything open for spins etc to make the 'flavours' that they want to (Server, Desktop, KDE....). Hm... I can see this for some of the tasks suggested (clamping down on updates, getting autoqa up and going)... they apply equally to any use case. Bill From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 16:20:23 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:20:23 -0700 Subject: Beta packages within stable releases In-Reply-To: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> References: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> Message-ID: <4AD4A8C7.1020202@redhat.com> Ken Chilton said the following on 10/10/2009 12:57 PM Pacific Time: > Dear members of the Fedora Board, > > I wish to encourage you to reconsider the policies regarding packages in > Fedora releases. Currently, within Fedora 11, there are key packages > being distributed which are still in beta or otherwise unstable > condition with matching, prior stable packages available. Fedora 11, as > best as I can tell, is not a beta or development release. > I completely agree with you and think this issue should be addressed. I had a similar experience when a new MediaWiki update was added to Fedora 10 which required going to the command line, copying some files around and then running a script to update the database schema. This did not meet my expectations of an update to a stable release either. As much as I would like the board to address this issue I want to be careful that this is an issue that the board should be deciding. In the past we have tried to be careful about not taking on issues that are FESCo's responsibility. Since this has to do specifically with packaging issues and how/when/where those packages are released this issue might actually belong to FESCo. What are the views of other members of FESCo or the board? John From notting at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 16:22:41 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:22:41 -0400 Subject: Beta packages within stable releases In-Reply-To: <4AD4A8C7.1020202@redhat.com> References: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> <4AD4A8C7.1020202@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091013162241.GB15849@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: > I completely agree with you and think this issue should be > addressed. I had a similar experience when a new MediaWiki update > was added to Fedora 10 which required going to the command line, > copying some files around and then running a script to update the > database schema. This did not meet my expectations of an update to > a stable release either. > > As much as I would like the board to address this issue I want to be > careful that this is an issue that the board should be deciding. In > the past we have tried to be careful about not taking on issues that > are FESCo's responsibility. Since this has to do specifically with > packaging issues and how/when/where those packages are released this > issue might actually belong to FESCo. > > What are the views of other members of FESCo or the board? I suspect it's the purview of the board to set goals such that FESCo can make policies that implement these goals. Bill From jonstanley at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 16:29:45 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:29:45 -0400 Subject: Beta packages within stable releases In-Reply-To: <4AD4A8C7.1020202@redhat.com> References: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> <4AD4A8C7.1020202@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM, John Poelstra wrote: > What are the views of other members of FESCo or the board? In EPEL, we (finally) have something of a policy on this. This is because EL users expect that there systems will Just Work(TM) after an update. At the same time, we realize that: 1) We are not paid by RHT to backport impossible patches to old versions of software 2) There will be security issues where there is no upstream patch, and backporting the fix from upstream would be difficult/impossible. 3) In any situation *other* than a security fix, breaking the user experience is to be avoided at all costs. 4) People will want the newest bling available :) - which goal is incompatible with 3. Therefore, we've come up with a compromise. I'm not sure that this would be applicable to Fedora as a whole, but we've had some good discussions in EPEL and it's a start. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_incompatible_upgrades_policy From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 16:57:36 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:57:36 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AD4B180.5090000@redhat.com> Mike McGrath said the following on 10/12/2009 07:06 AM Pacific Time: > I put this proposal together based on the various emails I read on this > list, other lists and some private emails. The changes listed are > entirely around having a more usable, stable desktop environment as that > was the most common view I've observed. Thanks for taking the time to do this! I really appreciate the approach you've taken. > It's also worthy of note that all of the solutions suggested do not > involve me in any way. So view this proposal either as coming from > someone who has no idea what they're talking about, or someone who has > intimate knowledge of Fedora but is not directly on the front lines of > developing the actual operating system. You'll notice the > implementation details are left up to the various teams in charge of such > a thing. Questions and comments welcome, actions even more so. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mmcgrath/Desktop_Proposal > > = Mission Change = > > Right now our mission statements, as listed on the overview page are: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission > > * The Fedora Project always strives to lead, not follow. > * The Fedora Project consistently seeks to create, improve, and spread > free/libre code and content. > * The Fedora Project succeeds through shared action on the part of > many people throughout our community. > Technically, the mission statement (singular) which the board decided on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-03-10 is: "To lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community" > == Problem 1: Too broad == > > The objectives above are incredibly broad. It's not even clear that we > produce a Linux based distribution. Even though the Fedora Project does > much more, our biggest feat at this time is the production of the Fedora > operating system. > "objectives" != "mission" Mission == https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview Objectives == https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives hmmm... might make sense to rename those pages! :) The objectives page *does* talk about creating a distribution. To my knowledge the board has not formally reviewed this page and it should. It was part of the original process proposed by Paul in early 2009 when the board reworked the mission statement. I am not satisfied with the current state of the Objectives page as I think parts of it contradict itself and other parts not so verbose. Before we tackle the Objectives page, we need to fill in the rest of the Overview page, including who our target audience is. > == Solution 1: Define an additional mission == > > Adopt a new mission worded in an agreeable way similar to: > > "Produce a usable, general purpose desktop operating system" > > I feel this fundamental shift on the mission page is required. Our teams > all do lots of different and valuable work. All of these teams are on a > schedule based around our regular releases of the operating system. This > will also give our contributors and leaders the ability to ask themselves: > > "Does this change/feature/task help produce a usable, general purpose > desktop operating system?" > > If the answer to that question is no, perhaps it's worth re-thinking this > change/feature/task. > > = QA = > > Noticeably absent from this document has been the mention of QA. This is > because QA as a team and as a function are undergoing significant changes > at this time. It seems inappropriate to comment on a system that is not > yet in place. > I think it is still worth taking a stab at. I'm curious how would QA fit into your overall proposal. It might spark some ideas for them or confirm plans they already have. John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 17:50:21 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:50:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <4AD3D5FE.1070803@redhat.com> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4AD3D5FE.1070803@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Tim Burke wrote: > I think the term "desktop" in this sentence: > > "Produce a usable, general purpose desktop operating system" > > is a lightening rod in the conversation. This proposal really isn't at all > about desktop. Rather it is about improving release stability for end users. > You can just as well remove the word desktop in that mission statement, > leaving a general purpose OS. > A fair request. I've updated the wiki to reflect this. -Mike From smooge at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 18:05:37 2009 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:05:37 -0600 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091013131137.GA10172@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091012183733.GN10453@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1255385625.4148.380.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091013131137.GA10172@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <80d7e4090910131105q58d26467va5df0260a8f70379@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:13:45PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 14:37 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> > >> > Do you agree that our test coverage would improve if all the following >> > happened? >> > >> > * One or more experimental branches were offered beyond Rawhide for >> > ? daily work that might break critical path; >> >> Each added repo increases the test matrix exponentially. ?More repos >> frankly == less likelihood of getting QA coverage. ?Once we've frozen >> rawhide and are ready to polish it into a release, an updates-testing >> repo for the pending release makes sense. ?Allow people to propose >> freeze breaks, test them across a wide audience, and eventually push >> them into the pending release (or drop them on the floor). ?It does get >> hard though if you want to push say a new gecko stack, and have to >> rebuild 15~ packages along the way, then have to roll them back somehow. > > These experimental branches are not intended for test matrix > coverage. ?They'd be purely for the developers to have WIPs that > aren't ready for public consumption. Ok speaking as a systems admin and not the guy who has to wrangle cats... but could a system based more on the git workflow be something to work towards? Instead of developers pushing stuff into rawhide, stuff is pulled into rawhide. If it doesn't meet some minimal test requirements the merge is dropped. Project teams/developers work on their own 'spins' that can be pulled up through a similar signoff mechanism as the kernel uses. -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 18:29:30 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:29:30 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090910131105q58d26467va5df0260a8f70379@mail.gmail.com> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091012183733.GN10453@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1255385625.4148.380.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091013131137.GA10172@victoria.internal.frields.org> <80d7e4090910131105q58d26467va5df0260a8f70379@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1255458570.4148.402.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 12:05 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Ok speaking as a systems admin and not the guy who has to wrangle > cats... but could a system based more on the git workflow be something > to work towards? Instead of developers pushing stuff into rawhide, > stuff is pulled into rawhide. If it doesn't meet some minimal test > requirements the merge is dropped. Project teams/developers work on > their own 'spins' that can be pulled up through a similar signoff > mechanism as the kernel uses. > > The problem becomes the integration testing, and when big changes need to touch on many packages. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 18:41:00 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:41:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255458570.4148.402.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091012183733.GN10453@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1255385625.4148.380.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091013131137.GA10172@victoria.internal.frields.org> <80d7e4090910131105q58d26467va5df0260a8f70379@mail.gmail.com> <1255458570.4148.402.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 12:05 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Ok speaking as a systems admin and not the guy who has to wrangle > > cats... but could a system based more on the git workflow be something > > to work towards? Instead of developers pushing stuff into rawhide, > > stuff is pulled into rawhide. If it doesn't meet some minimal test > > requirements the merge is dropped. Project teams/developers work on > > their own 'spins' that can be pulled up through a similar signoff > > mechanism as the kernel uses. > > > > > > The problem becomes the integration testing, and when big changes need > to touch on many packages. > Shouldn't someone be overseeing those changes though? Why not just have that person manage all the packages in that repo until they sign off on it? -Mike From smooge at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 19:28:21 2009 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:28:21 -0600 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255458570.4148.402.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255361607.4148.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255364570.4148.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091012183733.GN10453@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1255385625.4148.380.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091013131137.GA10172@victoria.internal.frields.org> <80d7e4090910131105q58d26467va5df0260a8f70379@mail.gmail.com> <1255458570.4148.402.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <80d7e4090910131228l70ee323l83cc296a62ac352@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 12:05 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Ok speaking as a systems admin and not the guy who has to wrangle >> cats... but could a system based more on the git workflow be something >> to work towards? Instead of developers pushing stuff into rawhide, >> stuff is pulled into rawhide. If it doesn't meet some minimal test >> requirements the merge is dropped. Project teams/developers work on >> their own 'spins' that can be pulled up through a similar signoff >> mechanism as the kernel uses. >> >> > > The problem becomes the integration testing, and when big changes need > to touch on many packages. Ok I could see that.. it is not like you can see that the stuff doesn't compile or throw a lot of errors. My guess is that if it were possible it would take a lot of lieutenants to the main person. Those lieutenants would be required to sign off on it working with some date of the main tree to the list of tests. However it would probably create a feudal system out of releases versus a democracy. > -- > Jesse Keating > Fedora -- Freedom? is a feature! > identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > > -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning From poelstra at redhat.com Tue Oct 13 21:48:48 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:48:48 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <9f7776d00910120655q4182cbcakb828f3cf933fa7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AD2ED5E.60507@kanarip.com> <9f7776d00910120655q4182cbcakb828f3cf933fa7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD4F5C0.8050702@redhat.com> Gregory Zysk said the following on 10/12/2009 06:55 AM Pacific Time: > Dear F-a-b, > > Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Gregory Zysk and I am a new > member to the Fedora community who is interested in the strategic > management/leadership of Fedora. Please take the time to view my wiki here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Gmzysk Welcome to Fedora! > As I am quite new, I am not sure about the prior work that has been done > to define the question of "What is the Fedora Project?" but from my > personal experiences so far every user and contributor view this > question in their own way (i.e People person vs. packager/developer, etc) > > I believe in order to truly form a strategy for growth and target a > specific user segment, we need apply some research internally and > externally. If not applied already, as a form of Organizational > Development, one can start with measuring the needs and values of a > contributor through sampling. We can reciprocate this process for all > positions within Fedora and then move to the outside of the organization > to sample a group of "external" users. For instance, those who use other > open source distros, proprietary OS's and the like (This can be > accomplished through surveys or focus groups on-line or off-line at for > example Fedora events). Once we gain this data, we can begin to measure > these needs and values to that of Fedora's needs and values (at a > management/leadership level) to see if they are in alignment. One can > also view this as aligned resources for strategic fit. Long term I think these could be useful things to do, many of which could be done in parallel with our ongoing releases. Short term we find ourselves a month away from releasing the 12th release of Fedora with work on the 13th release already starting. There isn't really time to freeze everything to research these things nor a lot of people with background or experience doing what you have suggested. Some work has been done by the marketing team so that could be a good place to work on these things. > I believe once we get some solid data, then we can start to forecast and > plan for strategic development which in turn can be used to steer the > marketing team and the ambassadors in the way we would like to position > ourselves at events, as well as the open source market. > > Once again, since I am new, I am not sure if this has been brought up > before, but nonetheless, I believe I can help a great deal in regards to > this topic and overall organizational management, development and > planning. I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. > You might want to subscribe to "logistics"[1] list and watch the "F12 Beta Release Readiness" meeting tomorrow at 19:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting. The overall organizational management and planning is fairly informal and works better than most people think at first glance :) John [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics From stickster at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 22:21:20 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:21:20 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD4F5C0.8050702@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AD2ED5E.60507@kanarip.com> <9f7776d00910120655q4182cbcakb828f3cf933fa7c@mail.gmail.com> <4AD4F5C0.8050702@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091013222120.GF24310@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 02:48:48PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > Gregory Zysk said the following on 10/12/2009 06:55 AM Pacific Time: > > Dear F-a-b, > > > > Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Gregory Zysk and I am a new > > member to the Fedora community who is interested in the strategic > > management/leadership of Fedora. Please take the time to view my > wiki here: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Gmzysk > > Welcome to Fedora! > > > As I am quite new, I am not sure about the prior work that has been done > > to define the question of "What is the Fedora Project?" but from my > > personal experiences so far every user and contributor view this > > question in their own way (i.e People person vs. packager/developer, etc) > > > > I believe in order to truly form a strategy for growth and target a > > specific user segment, we need apply some research internally and > > externally. If not applied already, as a form of Organizational > > Development, one can start with measuring the needs and values of a > > contributor through sampling. We can reciprocate this process for all > > positions within Fedora and then move to the outside of the organization > > to sample a group of "external" users. For instance, those who use other > > open source distros, proprietary OS's and the like (This can be > > accomplished through surveys or focus groups on-line or off-line at for > > example Fedora events). Once we gain this data, we can begin to measure > > these needs and values to that of Fedora's needs and values (at a > > management/leadership level) to see if they are in alignment. One can > > also view this as aligned resources for strategic fit. > > Long term I think these could be useful things to do, many of which > could be done in parallel with our ongoing releases. Short term we > find ourselves a month away from releasing the 12th release of > Fedora with work on the 13th release already starting. There isn't > really time to freeze everything to research these things nor a lot > of people with background or experience doing what you have > suggested. Some work has been done by the marketing team so that > could be a good place to work on these things. Gregory was at the Marketing meeting today and we gave him some reading suggestions of interest, including "Producing OSS" and "The Starfish and the Spider". There is a lot of information in these two books that will form a foundation for understanding organziations that are not typically or strictly hierarchical. -- 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 mel at redhat.com Wed Oct 14 13:51:47 2009 From: mel at redhat.com (Mel Chua) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:51:47 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091013222120.GF24310@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AD2ED5E.60507@kanarip.com> <9f7776d00910120655q4182cbcakb828f3cf933fa7c@mail.gmail.com> <4AD4F5C0.8050702@redhat.com> <20091013222120.GF24310@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4AD5D773.5020202@redhat.com> > Gregory was at the Marketing meeting today and we gave him some > reading suggestions of interest, including "Producing OSS" and "The > Starfish and the Spider". There is a lot of information in these two > books that will form a foundation for understanding organziations that > are not typically or strictly hierarchical. It was a good, thought-provoking conversation for me in terms of what a newcomer to the Fedora Project (particularly with Gregory's background) sees Fedora as, and how he got that impression. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing_meetings#2009 has logs for anyone interested in reading. --Mel From gz.int.project at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 14:51:34 2009 From: gz.int.project at gmail.com (Gregory Zysk) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:51:34 +0200 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD4F5C0.8050702@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007153649.GQ28168@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AD2ED5E.60507@kanarip.com> <9f7776d00910120655q4182cbcakb828f3cf933fa7c@mail.gmail.com> <4AD4F5C0.8050702@redhat.com> Message-ID: <9f7776d00910140751y1586d235hcfc729a7b5d6927b@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:48 PM, John Poelstra wrote: > Gregory Zysk said the following on 10/12/2009 06:55 AM Pacific Time: > > Dear F-a-b, > > > > Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Gregory Zysk and I am a new > > member to the Fedora community who is interested in the strategic > > management/leadership of Fedora. Please take the time to view my wiki > here: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Gmzysk > > Welcome to Fedora! >> Thanks John :) > > > > As I am quite new, I am not sure about the prior work that has been done > > to define the question of "What is the Fedora Project?" but from my > > personal experiences so far every user and contributor view this > > question in their own way (i.e People person vs. packager/developer, etc) > > > > I believe in order to truly form a strategy for growth and target a > > specific user segment, we need apply some research internally and > > externally. If not applied already, as a form of Organizational > > Development, one can start with measuring the needs and values of a > > contributor through sampling. We can reciprocate this process for all > > positions within Fedora and then move to the outside of the organization > > to sample a group of "external" users. For instance, those who use other > > open source distros, proprietary OS's and the like (This can be > > accomplished through surveys or focus groups on-line or off-line at for > > example Fedora events). Once we gain this data, we can begin to measure > > these needs and values to that of Fedora's needs and values (at a > > management/leadership level) to see if they are in alignment. One can > > also view this as aligned resources for strategic fit. > > Long term I think these could be useful things to do, many of which could > be done in parallel with our ongoing releases. Short term we find ourselves > a month away from releasing the 12th release of Fedora with work on the 13th > release already starting. There isn't really time to freeze everything to > research these things nor a lot of people with background or experience > doing what you have suggested. Some work has been done by the marketing > team so that could be a good place to work on these things. > >>> Agreed. It would definitely be a long term process. > > > I believe once we get some solid data, then we can start to forecast and > > plan for strategic development which in turn can be used to steer the > > marketing team and the ambassadors in the way we would like to position > > ourselves at events, as well as the open source market. > > > > Once again, since I am new, I am not sure if this has been brought up > > before, but nonetheless, I believe I can help a great deal in regards to > > this topic and overall organizational management, development and > > planning. I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. > > > > You might want to subscribe to "logistics"[1] list and watch the "F12 Beta > Release Readiness" meeting tomorrow at 19:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting. The > overall organizational management and planning is fairly informal and works > better than most people think at first glance :) > >>> I have subscribed to this group and will try to be present at the meeting this evening. >>> Thanks again for your help and suggestions!!! :) > > John > > [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics > > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > -- Gregory Zysk https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Gmzysk Fingerprint: 4643 E1AE 1AAD 85D4 6276 7C42 3591 A189 B8BF 04D6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Wed Oct 14 17:45:41 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?windows-1252?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:45:41 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> I wanted to point out another view on this topic, from a technical user who uses not only Fedora but other Linux distros. She messaged me off-list and asked me to present her point-of-view, and my summary of that is what follows: - She has been using Linux for over 11 years and works on a security product that involves securing multiple Linux distributions - SuSE, Fedora, Debian, Mandriva, etc. - Fedora had been the favored Linux distro for both her and many of her prominent customers, including well-known government and military agencies. Up until FC6. Over the past two years, distros such as CentOS, SuSe, Ubuntu, Scientific Linux, and Oracle Linux are showing greater stability and thus customer interest has shifted away from Fedora. - Fedora "was cutting edge, yet reasonably stable and easy to use." Now it is too unstable. Some complaints about recent Fedora releases she has heard from clients, "antagonistic upgrades and an increasing lack of stability." - The clients she refers to are highly-technical users, running advanced scientific projects and in some cases military operations. They're not highly technical in terms of being intimately familiar with the inner workings of Linux, they're highly technical in their domains which are complex. They have PhDs in meterology or advanced medical and aeronautics degrees. And they want the distro they work with to just work - they can't deal with the instability we've introduced over the past two years and have started going elsewhere. The suggestion elsewhere in the thread that one should be required to have a 'drivers license' to run a distro she related to requiring a kernel hacker to interpret the results of a medical exam - a highly technical person just not in their field of expertise. One particular quote she gave me that I'd like to share: "Fedora boasts of an "innovation" target audience but is falling down in the two areas real world (excepting perhaps games and CGI) high-innovation users demand: stable upgrades and consistent usability. I believe if your group can wrestle these back under control the distro numbers would increase dramatically." In summary, having technical users as a target isn't a good excuse for instability and complexity. ~m From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 14 18:30:41 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:30:41 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> On 10/14/2009 01:45 PM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > - Fedora had been the favored Linux distro for both her and many of her > prominent customers, including well-known government and military > agencies. Up until FC6. Over the past two years, distros such as CentOS, > SuSe, Ubuntu, Scientific Linux, and Oracle Linux are showing greater > stability and thus customer interest has shifted away from Fedora. There is a certain amount of irony here, as FC6 was the last release where the core was built, maintained, and updated solely by Red Hat. In many ways, Red Hat built Fedora internally (in those days) like it did RHEL. There are obvious pros (and cons) to that approach, but I do not think it is worthwhile spending too much time reflecting on the past. I do however, tend to agree with this user's conclusions: Fedora needs a measure of controlled stability and improved usability. I think there are a few things that we need to do to accomplish that: * Fedora needs a dedicated focus on usability. This is something that requires coordinating the efforts of designers and programmers, along with usability testing. I'm proud to have been able to take the first baby step towards that by providing Mo with a portable Usability lab, so we can begin gathering data and doing research, but there is much that still needs to be done. * Fedora needs a dedicated focus on QA. This is something where I feel confident we are currently making solid progress, especially around AutoQA, but we are not making enough noise about. The fact that Chris Aillon (a Board member) was unaware of this initiative illustrates that failing. :) Our improved Test Days and Bug Triage are wins, but we need to continue to be more aggressive here, and try to find ways to involve and incorporate our community. * Fedora needs to improve how it handles updates. Part of this problem is defining what merits an update. Some of this is covered by the Critical Path initiative, but I think we can build upon that foundation. Just off the top of my head, how about something like this: * Clearly mark Critical Path packages as such in Fedora infrastructure * Critical Path packages may not do "enhancement" updates on a non-rawhide release branch (exceptions permitted only with FESCo approval). * Critical Path packages must have a QA test plan for updates to ensure that there is no loss in functionality. * Where applicable, the user experience should not change for a Critical Path package as part of an update (with the notable exception of a bug fix or security hole closed) * Packages not defined as Critical Path are permitted to do "enhancement" updates on a non-rawhide release branch, but are strongly encouraged to minimize the amount and frequency of these updates. * Any non-Critical Path update which alters the user experience must be documented as a part of the update announcement, and announced to the relevant mailing lists (perhaps all "enhancement" updates go out to fedora-list?) FWIW, I also think that "updates-testing", as it is today, does not work for Fedora. In all of my packages, I am lucky if I can convince even one individual to provide karma on an update, and I have never managed more than that, even when I know there are tens/hundreds of users aware of the bug (and waiting for the update to fix it). A few ideas on how to fix it: * Make a period of time in updates-testing mandatory for all updates. This can still be overridden by "bodhi karma" votes from testers, but nothing can be pushed directly to stable. I'm not a fan of this on its own, as I think it will merely encourage people to game the system, as we have seen before when individual maintainers have imposed similar policies on their own packages... but if paired with my other idea... * Encourage community testing of updates-testing, via "Fedora kudos". If every package had a list of functionalities and features, and instructions on how to test those features, every update would be reasonably testable by a competant Fedora user. Any user who tested an update and indicated that it: - No longer illustrated the bug it fixed. - Functioned as expected and documented Would receive "a Fedora kudo". (Heck, they'd even get one if they showed that the update was broken, that's just as useful to know!) We'd also give out kudos for users who help define the functionalities/features of a Fedora package (with screenshots, testing commands to run). Package maintainers can always sanity check these, and we will also want to encourage folks to be doing peer review of such items. This requires some infrastructure to be built to enable this, but I think the payoff potential here is huge. I'm hopeful that we can do this as part of the next major milestone of the "Fedora Community" Moksha project. ****** I am interested in hearing the thoughts of others around these ideas. ~spot From tburke at redhat.com Wed Oct 14 19:00:18 2009 From: tburke at redhat.com (Tim Burke) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:00:18 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > > - The clients she refers to are highly-technical users, running > advanced scientific projects and in some cases military operations. > They're not highly technical in terms of being intimately familiar > with the inner workings of Linux, they're highly technical in their > domains which are complex. They have PhDs in meterology or advanced > medical and aeronautics degrees. And they want the distro they work > with to just work - they can't deal with the instability we've > introduced over the past two years and have started going elsewhere. > The suggestion elsewhere in the thread that one should be required to > have a 'drivers license' to run a distro she related to requiring a > kernel hacker to interpret the results of a medical exam - a highly > technical person just not in their field of expertise. > sounds like RHEL From bruno at wolff.to Wed Oct 14 19:31:26 2009 From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:31:26 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091014193126.GA24412@wolff.to> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 14:30:41 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > FWIW, I also think that "updates-testing", as it is today, does not work > for Fedora. In all of my packages, I am lucky if I can convince even one > individual to provide karma on an update, and I have never managed more > than that, even when I know there are tens/hundreds of users aware of > the bug (and waiting for the update to fix it). A few ideas on how to > fix it: When I am not on rawhide I use updates-testing, but I don't go looking at updates-testing packages specifically. If I notice something broken then I am likely to note the problem somewhere (bodhi or bugzilla). So typically I will only give negative feedback. For cases where I have bugs open I am more likely to be pulling stuff out of koji rather than waiting to get it through updates-testing. Even when using rawhide I'll get stuff from koji, if there is a freeze or if I don't want to wait a day for the update to make it to a mirror. From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 19:34:10 2009 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:34:10 -0800 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Tim Burke wrote: > sounds like RHEL And more on that point... I would have liked to have know what the expected length of deployment of those highly technical clients are and what the workloads actually are.... and where in the software stack the instabilities are for them. Are we talking general productivity applications? Are we talking about general desktop framework instability? Are we talking about development tool chain instability for in-house code development? Are we talking about scientific analysis toolkit instability? Are we talking about something even more niche than scientific analysis? Highly technical users... aren't necessarily using their systems for highly technical workloads. It would be nice to understand what the workload is and what the specific instability gripes are. -jef From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Wed Oct 14 21:42:25 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?windows-1252?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:42:25 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/14/2009 03:00 PM, Tim Burke wrote: > M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >> >> >> - The clients she refers to are highly-technical users, running >> advanced scientific projects and in some cases military operations. >> They're not highly technical in terms of being intimately familiar >> with the inner workings of Linux, they're highly technical in their >> domains which are complex. They have PhDs in meterology or advanced >> medical and aeronautics degrees. And they want the distro they work >> with to just work - they can't deal with the instability we've >> introduced over the past two years and have started going elsewhere. >> The suggestion elsewhere in the thread that one should be required to >> have a 'drivers license' to run a distro she related to requiring a >> kernel hacker to interpret the results of a medical exam - a highly >> technical person just not in their field of expertise. >> > sounds like RHEL I *think* (and I'm relaying 3rd party information and then speculating on it, so this may be an exercise in futility) that the difference is that she said Fedora was on the leading edge, and that's why they had always gravitated towards it in the past. RHEL tends to be a bit behind Fedora, for the sake of stability. Even so, when Fedora was leading edge a couple of years ago, it was still stable enough for these folks to do their work. ~m From inode0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 14 22:33:55 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:33:55 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: 2009/10/14 M?ir?n Duffy : > On 10/14/2009 03:00 PM, Tim Burke wrote: >> >> M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >>> >>> >>> - The clients she refers to are highly-technical users, running >>> advanced scientific projects and in some cases military operations. >>> They're not highly technical in terms of being intimately familiar >>> with the inner workings of Linux, they're highly technical in their >>> domains which are complex. They have PhDs in meterology or advanced >>> medical and aeronautics degrees. And they want the distro they work >>> with to just work - they can't deal with the instability we've >>> introduced over the past two years and have started going elsewhere. >>> The suggestion elsewhere in the thread that one should be required to >>> have a 'drivers license' to run a distro she related to requiring a >>> kernel hacker to interpret the results of a medical exam - a highly >>> technical person just not in their field of expertise. >>> >> sounds like RHEL > > I *think* (and I'm relaying 3rd party information and then speculating on > it, so this may be an exercise in futility) that the difference is that she > said Fedora was on the leading edge, and that's why they had always > gravitated towards it in the past. RHEL tends to be a bit behind Fedora, for > the sake of stability. Even so, when Fedora was leading edge a couple of > years ago, it was still stable enough for these folks to do their work. But I've been running Fedora as my primary desktop from F7 on and it has been plenty stable for me to do my work. So I think Jeff is right, it would be really nice to know more about the work they are doing that exposes this "instability." John From mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Oct 14 23:57:35 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:57:35 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > 2009/10/14 M?ir?n Duffy : > > On 10/14/2009 03:00 PM, Tim Burke wrote: > >> > >> M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> - The clients she refers to are highly-technical users, running > >>> advanced scientific projects and in some cases military operations. > >>> They're not highly technical in terms of being intimately familiar > >>> with the inner workings of Linux, they're highly technical in their > >>> domains which are complex. They have PhDs in meterology or advanced > >>> medical and aeronautics degrees. And they want the distro they work > >>> with to just work - they can't deal with the instability we've > >>> introduced over the past two years and have started going elsewhere. > >>> The suggestion elsewhere in the thread that one should be required to > >>> have a 'drivers license' to run a distro she related to requiring a > >>> kernel hacker to interpret the results of a medical exam - a highly > >>> technical person just not in their field of expertise. > >>> > >> sounds like RHEL > > > > I *think* (and I'm relaying 3rd party information and then speculating on > > it, so this may be an exercise in futility) that the difference is that she > > said Fedora was on the leading edge, and that's why they had always > > gravitated towards it in the past. RHEL tends to be a bit behind Fedora, for > > the sake of stability. Even so, when Fedora was leading edge a couple of > > years ago, it was still stable enough for these folks to do their work. > > But I've been running Fedora as my primary desktop from F7 on and it > has been plenty stable for me to do my work. So I think Jeff is right, > it would be really nice to know more about the work they are doing > that exposes this "instability." > For my wife it was closing her laptop lid and then opening it again later. Also she had problems viewing videos for any length of time, particularly youtube. I should also note she no longer has this problem but she's also not running Fedora anymore. -Mike From a.badger at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 00:55:27 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:55:27 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 05:28:53PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:18 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > Agreed, it should be the page that directs our contributors. > > > > Yes, we agree on the above. > > > > > To create a > > > usable, general purpose desktop. > > > > > > > > > > No we do not agree on this. The Fedora Project's mission isn't just to > > create a general purpose desktop. Not by a long shot. By saying that > > at a /project/ level you basically tell every person out there that > > wants to work on making servers better, or wants to develop good > > documentation for software, or wants to create artwork, or wants to do > > anything that isn't a "general purpose desktop" to piss off and find > > another project. I don't think that will result in more contributors > > coming to Fedora. > > > > So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and > just add one? Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to > build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of > the Fedora Project? > Yes. I agree with Jesse on this one. The Fedora Project should be about attracting contributors to make the Fedora Community better. This can include a lot of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with creating a distro, let alone a desktop distro. However, some subset of our contributors are interested in creating a desktop distro. Those subprojects (right now this work is focused via spins but it doesn't have to stay that way in the future) should carry the creation of a general purpose desktop as part of their mission. As part of our (The Fedora Project's) mission to build a better Fedora Community, promoting the various spins is one way to reward contributors for a job well done and to try to retain and grow the contributor base. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From smooge at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 01:16:37 2009 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:16:37 -0600 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090910141816j4b748db4ide09d436e5900142@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Tim Burke wrote: > M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >> >> >> - The clients she refers to are highly-technical users, running advanced >> scientific projects and in some cases military operations. They're not >> highly technical in terms of being intimately familiar with the inner >> workings of Linux, they're highly technical in their domains which are >> complex. They have PhDs in meterology or advanced medical and aeronautics >> degrees. And they want the distro they work with to just work - they can't >> deal with the instability we've introduced over the past two years and have >> started going elsewhere. The suggestion elsewhere in the thread that one >> should be required to have a 'drivers license' to run a distro she related >> to requiring a kernel hacker to interpret the results of a medical exam - a >> highly technical person just not in their field of expertise. >> > sounds like RHEL > Where Fedora was useful to various laboratories and schools was that it was considered RHEL leet. It would have newer stuff but it had credibility of being stable. If they needed a newer version of say XFDEbird they could go get it from rawhide or the next release. They wouldn't have it pushed on them in the middle of a release (well not normally). Basically it is becoming easier and easier for them to switch to another OS that they feel will be more stable -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 01:53:30 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:53:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 05:28:53PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 17:18 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > Agreed, it should be the page that directs our contributors. > > > > > > Yes, we agree on the above. > > > > > > > To create a > > > > usable, general purpose desktop. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No we do not agree on this. The Fedora Project's mission isn't just to > > > create a general purpose desktop. Not by a long shot. By saying that > > > at a /project/ level you basically tell every person out there that > > > wants to work on making servers better, or wants to develop good > > > documentation for software, or wants to create artwork, or wants to do > > > anything that isn't a "general purpose desktop" to piss off and find > > > another project. I don't think that will result in more contributors > > > coming to Fedora. > > > > > > > So lets leave the other missions in place, as suggested in the paper, and > > just add one? Is there anyone else on the list that thinks trying to > > build a usable, general purpose desktop is not worth being a mission of > > the Fedora Project? > > > Yes. I agree with Jesse on this one. > > The Fedora Project should be about attracting contributors to make the > Fedora Community better. This can include a lot of things that have nothing > whatsoever to do with creating a distro, let alone a desktop distro. > > However, some subset of our contributors are interested in creating a > desktop distro. Those subprojects (right now this work is focused via spins > but it doesn't have to stay that way in the future) should carry the > creation of a general purpose desktop as part of their mission. > > As part of our (The Fedora Project's) mission to build a better Fedora > Community, promoting the various spins is one way to reward contributors for > a job well done and to try to retain and grow the contributor base. > Here's the part I get confused on then. Where does the operating system that almost all of our contributors show up to work on fit in to the project? Is the only reason we have an OS because a bunch of contributors showed up and happened to want to work on it? -Mike From smooge at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 02:52:01 2009 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:52:01 -0600 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Tim Burke wrote: >> sounds like RHEL > > And more on that point... I would have liked to have know what the > expected length of deployment of those highly technical clients are > and what the workloads actually are.... and where in the software > stack the instabilities are for them. ? ? ?Are we talking general > productivity applications? Are we talking about general desktop > framework instability? ?Are we talking about development tool chain > instability for in-house code development? Are we talking about > scientific analysis toolkit instability? Are we talking about > something even more niche than scientific analysis? For the most the problems people have pointed out are the following: 1) Broken desktop tools in the middle of a release cycle. Having to figure out why conferencing tools arent after updates when they worked before was a big change for a set of desktops at one site. 2) Daily reboot/update with no idea why was one set of complaints I got an earful recently. 3) Functionality that was there easily before going away next release with brand new tools that never seem to get the functionality back. 4) Need to be on the internet ALWAYS (which turned out to be that trying to get packages off of a DVD or even an 'updated' DVD was much harder lately than in the past. Having to walk a technician on adding a package in the field of some test device is not what they want to deal with. 5) The cluster people who were using it to base off their next clusters off of EL-6 have no idea if Fedora is ever polished enough to want to look at future EL's. Most of these people do not mind rebuilding their boxes every 6 months... but add the above and the promises that Ubuntu and SuSE people say comes clearer and clearer. Part of this is change of perception.. at one point people looked at Fedora as Alpha/Beta RHEL. then it was seen as a good way to get a good desktop without having to use Windows like they are supposed to. Now a lot of questions I get are more on the lines of "What is Fedora doing these days?" One of the issues is a lot of these people are innovators. They use what is the latest but they inversely want to be able to read their email everyday without fiddling with tools. And they have long memories.. screw around with them too many times and 15 years later they are telling their grad students how you can't trust XYZ and never use it in the lab. > Highly technical users... aren't necessarily using their systems for > highly technical workloads. It would be nice to understand what the > workload is and what the specific instability gripes are. > > -jef > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning From smooge at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 03:03:28 2009 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:03:28 -0600 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090910142003v5d1066c8yc0139542d7b0cf09@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:33 PM, inode0 wrote: > 2009/10/14 M?ir?n Duffy : >> On 10/14/2009 03:00 PM, Tim Burke wrote: >>> >>> M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >>>> >>> sounds like RHEL >> >> I *think* (and I'm relaying 3rd party information and then speculating on >> it, so this may be an exercise in futility) that the difference is that she >> said Fedora was on the leading edge, and that's why they had always >> gravitated towards it in the past. RHEL tends to be a bit behind Fedora, for >> the sake of stability. Even so, when Fedora was leading edge a couple of >> years ago, it was still stable enough for these folks to do their work. > > But I've been running Fedora as my primary desktop from F7 on and it > has been plenty stable for me to do my work. So I think Jeff is right, > it would be really nice to know more about the work they are doing > that exposes this "instability." Most of the issues I have helped people through have been things that have been documented in the past at one point or another: pulseaudio changes a couple releases ago, nvidia changes another release, kde another release, etc. The issues are they are not expecting to 'beta-test' software after its been released (as someone who had been using RHL since 1997 told me... I think he is now an Ubuntu advocate.) -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning From a.badger at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 03:10:38 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:10:38 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> Message-ID: <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:53:30PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > Here's the part I get confused on then. Where does the operating system > that almost all of our contributors show up to work on fit in to the > project? Is the only reason we have an OS because a bunch of contributors > showed up and happened to want to work on it? > Yes :-) Or perhaps more informatively, in the beginning, the OS was probably the sole reason for the existence of the Fedora Project. But as time has gone on we've gotten bigger and things have started to change. The OS is what a significant number of contributors want to work on. But there's people working on numerous other things under the Fedora Umbrella now too. CSI is something you're working on, mirrormanager is something mdomsch is working on, fedora-classroom is something that nirik is working on, the latam ambassadors are interested in working on a moodle instance.... Lot's of code and content is being worked on that's only indirectly related to the putting together of the OS. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 03:29:26 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:29:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:53:30PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > Here's the part I get confused on then. Where does the operating system > > that almost all of our contributors show up to work on fit in to the > > project? Is the only reason we have an OS because a bunch of contributors > > showed up and happened to want to work on it? > > > Yes :-) > > Or perhaps more informatively, in the beginning, the OS was probably the > sole reason for the existence of the Fedora Project. But as time has gone > on we've gotten bigger and things have started to change. The OS is what a > significant number of contributors want to work on. But there's people > working on numerous other things under the Fedora Umbrella now too. CSI is > something you're working on, mirrormanager is something mdomsch is working > on, fedora-classroom is something that nirik is working on, the latam > ambassadors are interested in working on a moodle instance.... Lot's of > code and content is being worked on that's only indirectly related to the > putting together of the OS. > One could posit this is not a wise move considering the current state of the OS. -Mike From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 03:37:29 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:37:29 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> References: <1255361749.4148.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> Message-ID: <1255577849.6380.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 20:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Or perhaps more informatively, in the beginning, the OS was probably the > sole reason for the existence of the Fedora Project. But as time has gone > on we've gotten bigger and things have started to change. The OS is what a > significant number of contributors want to work on. But there's people > working on numerous other things under the Fedora Umbrella now too. CSI is > something you're working on, mirrormanager is something mdomsch is working > on, fedora-classroom is something that nirik is working on, the latam > ambassadors are interested in working on a moodle instance.... Lot's of > code and content is being worked on that's only indirectly related to the > putting together of the OS. One might classify the OS as a delivery mechanism for the majority of our other endeavors. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jonrob at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 09:24:04 2009 From: jonrob at fedoraproject.org (Jonathan Roberts) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:24:04 +0100 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> > 3) Functionality that was there easily before going away next release > with brand new tools that never seem to get the functionality back As a user who considers his technical abilities mediocre at best, the big problem for me has been that in one release I learn to configure a particular piece of hardware one way, and then in the next that just doesn't work anymore and I either have to learn the brand new way that is likely not documented in any obvious locations because it's so new, or live with hardware that is only half working. In the past I've accepted this, but this year I just can't spare the time and actually need my hardware to work properly. Not a particular constructive comment, just wanted to expand on Stephen's comment here. Cheers, Jon From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 09:59:55 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:59:55 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <1255577849.6380.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> <1255577849.6380.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091015095955.GT30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:37:29PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 20:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Or perhaps more informatively, in the beginning, the OS was probably the >> sole reason for the existence of the Fedora Project. But as time has gone >> on we've gotten bigger and things have started to change. The OS is what a >> significant number of contributors want to work on. But there's people >> working on numerous other things under the Fedora Umbrella now too. CSI is >> something you're working on, mirrormanager is something mdomsch is working >> on, fedora-classroom is something that nirik is working on, the latam >> ambassadors are interested in working on a moodle instance.... Lot's of >> code and content is being worked on that's only indirectly related to the >> putting together of the OS. > > >One might classify the OS as a delivery mechanism for the majority of >our other endeavors. Agree. Or in the case of mirrormanager, it is the delivery mechansim _for_ the OS. I don't consider the relationship there to be indirect at all. josh From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 14:40:59 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Jonathan Roberts wrote: >> 3) Functionality that was there easily before going away next release >> with brand new tools that never seem to get the functionality back > > As a user who considers his technical abilities mediocre at best, the > big problem for me has been that in one release I learn to configure a > particular piece of hardware one way, and then in the next that just > doesn't work anymore and I either have to learn the brand new way that > is likely not documented in any obvious locations because it's so new, > or live with hardware that is only half working. In the past I've > accepted this, but this year I just can't spare the time and actually > need my hardware to work properly. > > Not a particular constructive comment, just wanted to expand on > Stephen's comment here. And this is the crux of our problem: fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them. So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like fedora is just not for you. how else do we set reasonable expectations? -sv From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 15 14:48:08 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:48:08 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/15/2009 10:40 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > And this is the crux of our problem: > > fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to > have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them. > > So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like > fedora is just not for you. > > how else do we set reasonable expectations? Apparently we were able to achieve both the latest and stability several releases ago, though? ~m From a.badger at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 14:55:25 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:55:25 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091015095955.GT30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> <1255577849.6380.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015095955.GT30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20091015145525.GB19753@clingman.lan> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 05:59:55AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:37:29PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > >On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 20:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> Or perhaps more informatively, in the beginning, the OS was probably the > >> sole reason for the existence of the Fedora Project. But as time has gone > >> on we've gotten bigger and things have started to change. The OS is what a > >> significant number of contributors want to work on. But there's people > >> working on numerous other things under the Fedora Umbrella now too. CSI is > >> something you're working on, mirrormanager is something mdomsch is working > >> on, fedora-classroom is something that nirik is working on, the latam > >> ambassadors are interested in working on a moodle instance.... Lot's of > >> code and content is being worked on that's only indirectly related to the > >> putting together of the OS. > > > > > >One might classify the OS as a delivery mechanism for the majority of > >our other endeavors. > > Agree. Or in the case of mirrormanager, it is the delivery mechansim _for_ > the OS. I don't consider the relationship there to be indirect at all. > In mirrormanager's case, the project is becoming the delivery mechanism for projects other than Fedora. So it's no longer just a case of us designing software to deliver Fedora. It's become we're the major contributors to an upstream project that we use to deliver Fedora. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 15:04:24 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:04:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/15/2009 10:40 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> And this is the crux of our problem: >> >> fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to >> have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them. >> >> So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like >> fedora is just not for you. >> >> how else do we set reasonable expectations? > > Apparently we were able to achieve both the latest and stability several > releases ago, though? Not really. I have a few explanations for this: 0. I suspect there is a fair bit of nostalgic memory going on here. Things get better the more in the past you put them in your memory. It's an evolutionary advantage to not remember suffering as well. :) 1. at f6 things were still 'core and extras' and core meant @redhat.com people only which, implicitly, meant things went slower. That's not a positive statement. Look back at the complaints at that time. Look at the folks yelling that fedora was not bleeding edge it was not living up to its promise and stated goals. 2. f6 might have been a better than average release simply b/c of stablization work going into it for rhel5 - which was brought forth from f6. Also rhel5 coming out of f6 might be yet another reason for slower rev'ing of things in f6 b/c the internal folks were too busy to keep up a fast rev. 3. If you have a finite set of people who have to keep track of 100 things and you have the same number of people who have to keep track of 500 things I think you'll find that the people who have to keep track of the 100 things will do a better job. The size of the distro has grown significantly, the number of active contributors who are keeping things in shape has not grown that much. Do me a favor - think of the set of people you remember from f6 who were keeping things together and think of the set of people today. Now, how much larger is that group today than 3yrs ago? I suspect the answer is "not that much bigger". -sv From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 15:19:18 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:19:18 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1255619958.2894.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:40 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > And this is the crux of our problem: > > fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to > have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them. > > So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like > fedora is just not for you. > > how else do we set reasonable expectations? I think more to the crux, we're leading-edge in rawhide, but then that leading-edge flows right into our "stable" releases, as in the stable releases continue to be 'leading-edge' and change things on users. If we adopted more of a stance of leading edge on rawhide, stability in our releases, I think we'd have less grumpy users. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 15:29:36 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:29:36 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <20091015152935.GC30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> inode0 (inode0 at gmail.com) said: > But I've been running Fedora as my primary desktop from F7 on and it > has been plenty stable for me to do my work. So I think Jeff is right, > it would be really nice to know more about the work they are doing > that exposes this "instability." So, I have a user I support that has been running Fedora as a desktop for many years now. I went for a couple of years without hearing any complaints aside from an OO.o bug. However, on upgrading to F-11 (from F-9), I hear about: - graphics artifacts on unblanking the display - constant wireless dropouts - odd behaviors in firefox This may be constrained to F-11 being not one of our better releases, but it's still not good if it's a trend. Bill From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 15:31:56 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:31:56 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> References: <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> Message-ID: <20091015153156.GD30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger at gmail.com) said: > Yes :-) > > Or perhaps more informatively, in the beginning, the OS was probably the > sole reason for the existence of the Fedora Project. But as time has gone > on we've gotten bigger and things have started to change. The OS is what a > significant number of contributors want to work on. But there's people > working on numerous other things under the Fedora Umbrella now too. CSI is > something you're working on, mirrormanager is something mdomsch is working > on, fedora-classroom is something that nirik is working on, the latam > ambassadors are interested in working on a moodle instance.... Lot's of > code and content is being worked on that's only indirectly related to the > putting together of the OS. Yes, but.... If Fedora-the-OS doesn't exist, how many of these do? mirrormanager may, or may not. (As of now, I suppose you could classify it as an upstream project hosted at FH that we use.) Fedora classroom? Probably wouldn't exist. And generally, the ambassadors would not be ambassadoring without the OS. Bill From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 15:33:34 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <1255619958.2894.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <1255619958.2894.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:40 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: >> And this is the crux of our problem: >> >> fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to >> have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them. >> >> So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like >> fedora is just not for you. >> >> how else do we set reasonable expectations? > > I think more to the crux, we're leading-edge in rawhide, but then that > leading-edge flows right into our "stable" releases, as in the stable > releases continue to be 'leading-edge' and change things on users. > > If we adopted more of a stance of leading edge on rawhide, stability in > our releases, I think we'd have less grumpy users. they'd still have to upgrade every 13 months no matter what. It's not like we've bought them all that much time. -sv From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 15:34:44 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:34:44 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <1255619958.2894.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091015153444.GE30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Seth Vidal (skvidal at fedoraproject.org) said: > >I think more to the crux, we're leading-edge in rawhide, but then that > >leading-edge flows right into our "stable" releases, as in the stable > >releases continue to be 'leading-edge' and change things on users. > > > >If we adopted more of a stance of leading edge on rawhide, stability in > >our releases, I think we'd have less grumpy users. > > they'd still have to upgrade every 13 months no matter what. It's > not like we've bought them all that much time. Yes, but if you constrain the leading-edge change to an OS upgrade event, rather than doled out randomly with each update of your released OS, it can be planned for, and expectations set. Bill From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 15:36:49 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:36:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015153444.GE30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <1255619958.2894.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015153444.GE30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Seth Vidal (skvidal at fedoraproject.org) said: >>> I think more to the crux, we're leading-edge in rawhide, but then that >>> leading-edge flows right into our "stable" releases, as in the stable >>> releases continue to be 'leading-edge' and change things on users. >>> >>> If we adopted more of a stance of leading edge on rawhide, stability in >>> our releases, I think we'd have less grumpy users. >> >> they'd still have to upgrade every 13 months no matter what. It's >> not like we've bought them all that much time. > > Yes, but if you constrain the leading-edge change to an OS upgrade > event, rather than doled out randomly with each update of your released > OS, it can be planned for, and expectations set. I don't disagree with that. Controlling the set of updates for critpath is doable. Controlling that for the whole distro is much much harder. -sv From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 15:39:01 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:39:01 -0400 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091015145525.GB19753@clingman.lan> References: <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> <1255577849.6380.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015095955.GT30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091015145525.GB19753@clingman.lan> Message-ID: <20091015153901.GU30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 07:55:25AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 05:59:55AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 08:37:29PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >> >On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 20:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> >> Or perhaps more informatively, in the beginning, the OS was probably the >> >> sole reason for the existence of the Fedora Project. But as time has gone >> >> on we've gotten bigger and things have started to change. The OS is what a >> >> significant number of contributors want to work on. But there's people >> >> working on numerous other things under the Fedora Umbrella now too. CSI is >> >> something you're working on, mirrormanager is something mdomsch is working >> >> on, fedora-classroom is something that nirik is working on, the latam >> >> ambassadors are interested in working on a moodle instance.... Lot's of >> >> code and content is being worked on that's only indirectly related to the >> >> putting together of the OS. >> > >> > >> >One might classify the OS as a delivery mechanism for the majority of >> >our other endeavors. >> >> Agree. Or in the case of mirrormanager, it is the delivery mechansim _for_ >> the OS. I don't consider the relationship there to be indirect at all. >> >In mirrormanager's case, the project is becoming the delivery mechanism for >projects other than Fedora. So it's no longer just a case of us designing >software to deliver Fedora. It's become we're the major contributors to an >upstream project that we use to deliver Fedora. That's evolutionary. MM wouldn't have been written and used in Fedora if Fedora didn't need a better way to mirror it's _distro_. Again, not an indirect relationship. josh From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 15:53:21 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:53:21 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <1255619958.2894.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <1255619958.2894.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091015155321.GV30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 08:19:18AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:40 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: >> And this is the crux of our problem: >> >> fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to >> have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them. >> >> So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like >> fedora is just not for you. >> >> how else do we set reasonable expectations? > >I think more to the crux, we're leading-edge in rawhide, but then that >leading-edge flows right into our "stable" releases, as in the stable >releases continue to be 'leading-edge' and change things on users. > >If we adopted more of a stance of leading edge on rawhide, stability in >our releases, I think we'd have less grumpy users. I tend to agree, but I very much doubt this would be doable without some form of enforcement and policy around updates. We could start by focusing on critpath, but that would not catch the Thunderbird issue (for example). josh From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 15:56:42 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015155321.GV30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <1255619958.2894.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015155321.GV30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 08:19:18AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 10:40 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: >>> And this is the crux of our problem: >>> >>> fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to >>> have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them. >>> >>> So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like >>> fedora is just not for you. >>> >>> how else do we set reasonable expectations? >> >> I think more to the crux, we're leading-edge in rawhide, but then that >> leading-edge flows right into our "stable" releases, as in the stable >> releases continue to be 'leading-edge' and change things on users. >> >> If we adopted more of a stance of leading edge on rawhide, stability in >> our releases, I think we'd have less grumpy users. > > I tend to agree, but I very much doubt this would be doable without > some form of enforcement and policy around updates. We could start > by focusing on critpath, but that would not catch the Thunderbird > issue (for example). > So we won't catch everything. I think it's better to catch SOMETHINGs. -sv From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 15 15:59:16 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:59:16 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >> Apparently we were able to achieve both the latest and stability >> several releases ago, though? On 10/15/2009 11:04 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > Not really. > > I have a few explanations for this: Seth, I understand your argument, and I do understand visioning Fedora to be a proving ground for leading technology. However, I don't believe 'leading-edge' is mutually exclusive with 'usable.' There's a spectrum within leading-edge where it's too unstable to be usable v. leading edge at just the right sweet spot / pace that it's still functional. Couldn't we aim for the latter? What's the point of being leading-edge if it's so hard to use that nobody can actually check it out, learn from it, appreciate it? It's like a shopkeeper opening up a shop with amazing unique products, but keeping erratic and unposted hours, yet somehow expecting to have happy loyal customers and to make a profit. She'll have a limited population of extremely loyal customers, but feel frustrated that she seems unable to expand. Is that where Fedora is today? I have a bachelor's degree in computer science, a master's degree in human-computer interaction, and I have been using Linux since I was in high school. I love technology - many women are addicted to shoe-shopping, but I'm instead addicted to shopping new electronic gadgets. Software freedom is essentially my religion, and I've reserved a big chunk of my heart and soul for Fedora. Yet I am NOT happy to live with the scenario described in the postscript below. If *I* have a hard time dealing with it, how do we expect people who aren't total Fedora groupies and religious about free software to deal? Is Fedora truly not for me? ~m -- p.s. I use Fedora 11, not rawhide. While I was typing this email, my battery reached 3% capacity and gnome-power-manager prompted me to plug in my AC adapter. Instead of charging the battery, which certainly had enough juice for me to continue on (10 unplugged minutes left), plugging in the AC adapter triggered the machine to go into suspend. I was interrupted for 5+ blood-rising minutes while I waited for the machine to go into suspend, waited for it to settle, then hit a key to prompt it to come back. Then I had to attempt 6 or 7 times to get the fingerprint reader to unlock the screensaver dialog because GNOME screensaver doesn't let me type in my password with fingerprint enabled. I then had to re-connect my network, type in my keyring password, and re-connect to my VPN. Finally I was able to get back to this email. Note this is F11, and F11 is supposed to be a stable Fedora release. If my machine didn't play well with suspend (it occasionally crashes while suspending and never comes back), I would have lost all of my open work on this machine just now. This is maybe the 10th time this suspend scenario has happened to me with gnome-power-manager in the past month or so. I've lost quite a bit of work due to it. What can I do? I am powerless except to train myself to always keep my laptop plugged in (not great for my battery), and when I can't and my power runs low, I must drop everything I am doing, save ALL of my work, shut the computer down, plug it in, and then turn it back on. I don't necessarily think we need to have everything perfect and stable. But we don't want to abuse people, making them feel completely powerless over their computer. I think it would be worth brainstorming ways we can empower our users to deal with these types of problems. From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 16:18:44 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:18:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > Seth, I understand your argument, and I do understand visioning Fedora to be > a proving ground for leading technology. However, I don't believe > 'leading-edge' is mutually exclusive with 'usable.' There's a spectrum within > leading-edge where it's too unstable to be usable v. leading edge at just the > right sweet spot / pace that it's still functional. Couldn't we aim for the > latter? We have to AIM at all, first. That's what this discussion has been about. You can't aim for something without know what the target is. And your aim improves if you can distinguish the target from the background and other tangential items. > What's the point of being leading-edge if it's so hard to use that nobody can > actually check it out, learn from it, appreciate it? It's like a shopkeeper > opening up a shop with amazing unique products, but keeping erratic and > unposted hours, yet somehow expecting to have happy loyal customers and to > make a profit. She'll have a limited population of extremely loyal customers, > but feel frustrated that she seems unable to expand. Is that where Fedora is > today? I suspect fedora is like a shop filled with a hodgepodge of goods where and a title on the outside that says 'STUFF!' and no one knows WHY to go inside, let alone what they'll find when they get in there. I don't go into random knick-knack shops looking for shoes or food. I go to shoe stores or restaurants (respectively). What should the sign above fedora say? Programs! Software! ? > I have a bachelor's degree in computer science, a master's degree in > human-computer interaction, and I have been using Linux since I was in high > school. I love technology - many women are addicted to shoe-shopping, but I'm > instead addicted to shopping new electronic gadgets. Software freedom is > essentially my religion, and I've reserved a big chunk of my heart and soul > for Fedora. I don't think anyone here has ever questioned your cred. :) > Yet I am NOT happy to live with the scenario described in the postscript > below. If *I* have a hard time dealing with it, how do we expect people who > aren't total Fedora groupies and religious about free software to deal? And I think the point that Mike and I have been making on this list is that given the claimed goals of fedora we shouldn't expect people who are not religious about free software and heavily involved to get ANYTHING out of fedora. In short we have a choice: 1. change the goals of fedora OR 2. tell people we are intending for a small segment of the over population and those folks who are not in that segment and/or are not interested in becoming a member of that segment are NOT in the righr place. We don't get it both ways. > p.s. I use Fedora 11, not rawhide. While I was typing this email, my battery > reached 3% capacity and gnome-power-manager prompted me to plug in my AC > adapter. Instead of charging the battery, which certainly had enough juice > for me to continue on (10 unplugged minutes left), plugging in the AC adapter > triggered the machine to go into suspend. I was interrupted for 5+ > blood-rising minutes while I waited for the machine to go into suspend, > waited for it to settle, then hit a key to prompt it to come back. Then I had > to attempt 6 or 7 times to get the fingerprint reader to unlock the > screensaver dialog because GNOME screensaver doesn't let me type in my > password with fingerprint enabled. I then had to re-connect my network, type > in my keyring password, and re-connect to my VPN. Finally I was able to get > back to this email. > > Note this is F11, and F11 is supposed to be a stable Fedora release. If my > machine didn't play well with suspend (it occasionally crashes while > suspending and never comes back), I would have lost all of my open work on > this machine just now. > > This is maybe the 10th time this suspend scenario has happened to me with > gnome-power-manager in the past month or so. I've lost quite a bit of work > due to it. What can I do? I am powerless except to train myself to always > keep my laptop plugged in (not great for my battery), and when I can't and my > power runs low, I must drop everything I am doing, save ALL of my work, shut > the computer down, plug it in, and then turn it back on. > > I don't necessarily think we need to have everything perfect and stable. But > we don't want to abuse people, making them feel completely powerless over > their computer. I think it would be worth brainstorming ways we can empower > our users to deal with these types of problems. > my short answer to this is easy: newest != stable. Think back to RHL days. Remember the 'avoid the .0' strategy that A LOT of people adopted? Every fedora release is more or less a .0. THAT IS BY DESIGN OF OUR GOALS. If we want to change fedora we have to think about those goals. -sv From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 16:21:42 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:21:42 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > > Apparently we were able to achieve both the latest and stability > > > several releases ago, though? > > On 10/15/2009 11:04 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > Not really. > > > > I have a few explanations for this: > > Seth, I understand your argument, and I do understand visioning Fedora to be a > proving ground for leading technology. However, I don't believe 'leading-edge' > is mutually exclusive with 'usable.' There's a spectrum within leading-edge > where it's too unstable to be usable v. leading edge at just the right sweet > spot / pace that it's still functional. Couldn't we aim for the latter? > At the end of the day the newer something is, the less tested it is. The less tested it is, the less stable it is. Our mission of being first is at odds with stability. Not saying a balance can't be met, but they aren't very cynergistic. -Mike From a.badger at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 16:50:43 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:50:43 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091015153901.GU30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> <1255577849.6380.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015095955.GT30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091015145525.GB19753@clingman.lan> <20091015153901.GU30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20091015165043.GD19753@clingman.lan> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:39:01AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 07:55:25AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 05:59:55AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >In mirrormanager's case, the project is becoming the delivery mechanism for > >projects other than Fedora. So it's no longer just a case of us designing > >software to deliver Fedora. It's become we're the major contributors to an > >upstream project that we use to deliver Fedora. > > That's evolutionary. MM wouldn't have been written and used in Fedora if > Fedora didn't need a better way to mirror it's _distro_. Again, not an > indirect relationship. > Yes, but that works into what I'm saying: "in the beginning, the OS was probably the sole reason for the existence of the Fedora Project. But as time has gone on we've gotten bigger and things have started to change." -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 17:33:03 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:33:03 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091015173303.GY3348@victoria.internal.frields.org> Trying today to catch up with this and the many other related threads after roughly a week of travel. On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:30:41PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 10/14/2009 01:45 PM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > - Fedora had been the favored Linux distro for both her and many of her > > prominent customers, including well-known government and military > > agencies. Up until FC6. Over the past two years, distros such as CentOS, > > SuSe, Ubuntu, Scientific Linux, and Oracle Linux are showing greater > > stability and thus customer interest has shifted away from Fedora. > > There is a certain amount of irony here, as FC6 was the last release > where the core was built, maintained, and updated solely by Red Hat. Also interesting that she cites CentOS, Scientific, and Oracle, since those are all RHEL rebuilds, i.e. downstream of Fedora. It's a valid point that RHEL and thus its rebuilds are more stable, and even if the community starts to use a more disciplined approach to updates, I expect that will always be the case. > In many ways, Red Hat built Fedora internally (in those days) like it > did RHEL. There are obvious pros (and cons) to that approach, but I do > not think it is worthwhile spending too much time reflecting on the past. > > I do however, tend to agree with this user's conclusions: Fedora needs a > measure of controlled stability and improved usability. > > I think there are a few things that we need to do to accomplish that: > > * Fedora needs a dedicated focus on usability. This is something that > requires coordinating the efforts of designers and programmers, along > with usability testing. I'm proud to have been able to take the first > baby step towards that by providing Mo with a portable Usability lab, so > we can begin gathering data and doing research, but there is much that > still needs to be done. > > * Fedora needs a dedicated focus on QA. This is something where I feel > confident we are currently making solid progress, especially around > AutoQA, but we are not making enough noise about. The fact that Chris > Aillon (a Board member) was unaware of this initiative illustrates that > failing. :) Our improved Test Days and Bug Triage are wins, but we need > to continue to be more aggressive here, and try to find ways to involve > and incorporate our community. > > * Fedora needs to improve how it handles updates. Part of this problem > is defining what merits an update. Some of this is covered by the > Critical Path initiative, but I think we can build upon that foundation. > > Just off the top of my head, how about something like this: > > * Clearly mark Critical Path packages as such in Fedora infrastructure > * Critical Path packages may not do "enhancement" updates on a > non-rawhide release branch (exceptions permitted only with FESCo approval). > * Critical Path packages must have a QA test plan for updates to ensure > that there is no loss in functionality. > * Where applicable, the user experience should not change for a Critical > Path package as part of an update (with the notable exception of a bug > fix or security hole closed) > * Packages not defined as Critical Path are permitted to do > "enhancement" updates on a non-rawhide release branch, but are strongly > encouraged to minimize the amount and frequency of these updates. > * Any non-Critical Path update which alters the user experience must be > documented as a part of the update announcement, and announced to the > relevant mailing lists (perhaps all "enhancement" updates go out to > fedora-list?) There are two things here I especially like: * The involvement of FESCo as a decision-making authority, which ensures that update discipline comes from the community through a fully-elected body of representatives. * Informing the users directly, although I would advocate that we might need to adjust the venue depending on update timing and volume. Some possibilities that come to mind, none of them set in stone, include a new mailing list, an RSS feed, and/or a beat in FWN. > FWIW, I also think that "updates-testing", as it is today, does not work > for Fedora. In all of my packages, I am lucky if I can convince even one > individual to provide karma on an update, and I have never managed more > than that, even when I know there are tens/hundreds of users aware of > the bug (and waiting for the update to fix it). You're not alone. A very annoying bug in one of my packages was recently fixed and although I got scads of duplicate bugs and had cc'd many of the reporters, only one person reported back on the updates-testing package. > A few ideas on how to fix it: > > * Make a period of time in updates-testing mandatory for all updates. > This can still be overridden by "bodhi karma" votes from testers, but > nothing can be pushed directly to stable. I'm not a fan of this on its > own, as I think it will merely encourage people to game the system, as > we have seen before when individual maintainers have imposed similar > policies on their own packages... but if paired with my other idea... > > * Encourage community testing of updates-testing, via "Fedora kudos". If > every package had a list of functionalities and features, and > instructions on how to test those features, every update would be > reasonably testable by a competant Fedora user. Any user who tested an > update and indicated that it: > - No longer illustrated the bug it fixed. > - Functioned as expected and documented > Would receive "a Fedora kudo". (Heck, they'd even get one if they showed > that the update was broken, that's just as useful to know!) > We'd also give out kudos for users who help define the > functionalities/features of a Fedora package (with screenshots, testing > commands to run). Package maintainers can always sanity check these, and > we will also want to encourage folks to be doing peer review of such items. > > This requires some infrastructure to be built to enable this, but I > think the payoff potential here is huge. I'm hopeful that we can do this > as part of the next major milestone of the "Fedora Community" Moksha > project. It might be difficult to develop test plans for some packages, and/or to convince the maintainers to actually make them even with kudos, but the point would be to make kudos desirable enough to overcome such obstacles. What would kudos provide to the user other than a sort of karma rating? I'm slightly leery of widespread reward systems in general, since some studies show they actually *demotivate* people when overused. But at the same time, *focused* reward systems that value all contributions might provide entertainment and collaboration and keep the competitive aspect to a friendly minimum. Maybe the top kudos earner in a release cycle would earn a FUDCon trip, for example, or something the community feels is of sufficient value. That's a conversation we the community can probably have further down the road of actually putting such a system in place. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 17:33:30 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:33:30 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091015173330.GA3995@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said: > I do however, tend to agree with this user's conclusions: Fedora needs a > measure of controlled stability and improved usability. > > I think there are a few things that we need to do to accomplish that: > > * Fedora needs a dedicated focus on usability. This is something that > requires coordinating the efforts of designers and programmers, along > with usability testing. I'm proud to have been able to take the first > baby step towards that by providing Mo with a portable Usability lab, so > we can begin gathering data and doing research, but there is much that > still needs to be done. I'd agree here. I think I'm like many people here - I don't necessarily have the ability to make good design, but I can recognize bad ones. A non-trivial amount of software (that we ship, even!) falls into the bad category, and it's because there wasn't much thought given to the design when it was created (whether it's user interface, admin interface, or even API design.) > * Fedora needs a dedicated focus on QA. This is something where I feel > confident we are currently making solid progress, especially around > AutoQA, but we are not making enough noise about. The fact that Chris > Aillon (a Board member) was unaware of this initiative illustrates that > failing. :) Our improved Test Days and Bug Triage are wins, but we need > to continue to be more aggressive here, and try to find ways to involve > and incorporate our community. > > * Fedora needs to improve how it handles updates. Part of this problem > is defining what merits an update. Some of this is covered by the > Critical Path initiative, but I think we can build upon that foundation. These two in combination I think are the biggest win we can possibly have. As long as updates seem to follow an 'untested, anything goes' mentality, I don't see how we can target *any* use case beyond masochists. > Just off the top of my head, how about something like this: As a note... this may be better targeted at FESCo. Not sure. > * Clearly mark Critical Path packages as such in Fedora infrastructure > * Critical Path packages may not do "enhancement" updates on a > non-rawhide release branch (exceptions permitted only with FESCo approval). This may be a bit stringent. To grab an example, we push updates for yum to previous releases. It includes bugfixes, but also changes like: commit daab5bd8a7bf33902789e4f032babb2e88ac2f0d Author: James Antill Date: Mon Aug 17 11:28:33 2009 -0400 Add optimized simplePkgList() to sqlitesack, significant speedup: which could be considered enhancements. > * Critical Path packages must have a QA test plan for updates to ensure > that there is no loss in functionality. There's a chicken/egg issue here - will we not allow security updates until the maintainer writes a test plan? We may have to be lenient. > * Where applicable, the user experience should not change for a Critical > Path package as part of an update (with the notable exception of a bug > fix or security hole closed) > * Packages not defined as Critical Path are permitted to do > "enhancement" updates on a non-rawhide release branch, but are strongly > encouraged to minimize the amount and frequency of these updates. > * Any non-Critical Path update which alters the user experience must be > documented as a part of the update announcement, and announced to the > relevant mailing lists (perhaps all "enhancement" updates go out to > fedora-list?) This all sounds good to me. Of course, there's the issue of packages where the security updates come via updating to the latest upstreem. > FWIW, I also think that "updates-testing", as it is today, does not work > for Fedora. In all of my packages, I am lucky if I can convince even one > individual to provide karma on an update, and I have never managed more > than that, even when I know there are tens/hundreds of users aware of > the bug (and waiting for the update to fix it). A few ideas on how to > fix it: > > * Make a period of time in updates-testing mandatory for all updates. > This can still be overridden by "bodhi karma" votes from testers, but > nothing can be pushed directly to stable. I'm not a fan of this on its > own, as I think it will merely encourage people to game the system, as > we have seen before when individual maintainers have imposed similar > policies on their own packages... but if paired with my other idea... > > * Encourage community testing of updates-testing, via "Fedora kudos". If > every package had a list of functionalities and features, and > instructions on how to test those features, every update would be > reasonably testable by a competant Fedora user. Any user who tested an > update and indicated that it: > - No longer illustrated the bug it fixed. > - Functioned as expected and documented > Would receive "a Fedora kudo". (Heck, they'd even get one if they showed > that the update was broken, that's just as useful to know!) > We'd also give out kudos for users who help define the > functionalities/features of a Fedora package (with screenshots, testing > commands to run). Package maintainers can always sanity check these, and > we will also want to encourage folks to be doing peer review of such items. > > This requires some infrastructure to be built to enable this, but I > think the payoff potential here is huge. I'm hopeful that we can do this > as part of the next major milestone of the "Fedora Community" Moksha > project. That's a neat idea. To expand on it, I think we need to make it easier to provide this feedback for users? Ideally, we should be able tell on a user's system what packages they have that are test updates, have them easily provide such feedback, and automatically know when those updates go final (so we don't prompt them about something that's already final.) Bill From a.badger at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 17:30:26 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:30:26 -0700 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091015153156.GD30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> <20091015153156.GD30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091015173026.GE19753@clingman.lan> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:31:56AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger at gmail.com) said: > > Yes :-) > > > > Or perhaps more informatively, in the beginning, the OS was probably the > > sole reason for the existence of the Fedora Project. But as time has gone > > on we've gotten bigger and things have started to change. The OS is what a > > significant number of contributors want to work on. But there's people > > working on numerous other things under the Fedora Umbrella now too. CSI is > > something you're working on, mirrormanager is something mdomsch is working > > on, fedora-classroom is something that nirik is working on, the latam > > ambassadors are interested in working on a moodle instance.... Lot's of > > code and content is being worked on that's only indirectly related to the > > putting together of the OS. > > Yes, but.... > > If Fedora-the-OS doesn't exist, how many of these do? mirrormanager may, > or may not. (As of now, I suppose you could classify it as an upstream > project hosted at FH that we use.) Fedora classroom? Probably wouldn't > exist. And generally, the ambassadors would not be ambassadoring without > the OS. > I think that's somewhat tangential to what I'm getting at. Fedora the OS is a unifying force to the Fedora Project in that it brings us all together but you could substitute a different unifying force instead of Fedora the OS. There are tons of *nux distributions on the market but they don't all have the organized, non-OS focused contributors that we do. If we were building OpenSuSE or Ubuntu or OpenSolaris we'd be different than the current projects that are making those distributions. At the project level, the technology that we are creating is less important than the people we have creating it. So back to putting the fact that we build an opensource OS into the mission statement -- Sure we do create an opensource OS... but that's nothing special. What sets us apart on the OS front is that we create it from the latest software and we are serious about contributing to upstream projects. What sets us apart on the non-OS front is that we are working on enabling non-coders and people who could care less about Fedora the OS to make valuable contributions to us and the open source community as a whole. Here's another way to look at it. Let's say that funding for Fedora the OS went away but funding for all the rest of what Fedora does continued. Would we *desire* to keep the rest of Fedora going? Would we *try* to find ways to keep Fedora-classroom, mirrormanager, fedorahosted, etc development going and grow he contributors to them despite the OS not being there? For me personally, the answer would be yes. Those aspects of the project are worthwhile in and of themselves. We'd have to make changes to them if there was no OS to centre our attention but we'd still have a worthwhile "product" for end-users if we could adjust to that change. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 17:46:00 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:46:00 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015152935.GC30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015152935.GC30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091015174600.GZ3348@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:29:36AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > inode0 (inode0 at gmail.com) said: > > But I've been running Fedora as my primary desktop from F7 on and it > > has been plenty stable for me to do my work. So I think Jeff is right, > > it would be really nice to know more about the work they are doing > > that exposes this "instability." > > So, I have a user I support that has been running Fedora as a desktop > for many years now. I went for a couple of years without hearing any > complaints aside from an OO.o bug. However, on upgrading to F-11 (from > F-9), I hear about: > > - graphics artifacts on unblanking the display > - constant wireless dropouts > - odd behaviors in firefox > > This may be constrained to F-11 being not one of our better releases, > but it's still not good if it's a trend. Which is exactly why I feel that we would be better served making a better division between Rawhide and the stable releases. Spot's proposal about update discipline seems like a pretty good start to me. We are also under some (arguably valid) pressure to make sure that Rawhide is more often installable and runnable within some constraints (say, critical path). That's separate and distinct from the No Frozen Rawhide proposal, which simply allows developers and maintainers somewher to put post-freeze changes that are deemed too risky, unsuitable, or unfinished. -- 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 mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 15 17:46:56 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:46:56 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/15/2009 12:18 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > And I think the point that Mike and I have been making on this list is > that given the claimed goals of fedora we shouldn't expect people who > are not religious about free software and heavily involved to get > ANYTHING out of fedora. Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that. What I'm telling you here, though, is that I *am* the target user you're advocating for (freetard/zealot, techie, contributor), and at times I'm at my wit's end trying to use !rawhide Fedora. > In short we have a choice: > 1. change the goals of fedora > OR > > 2. tell people we are intending for a small segment of the over > population and those folks who are not in that segment and/or are not > interested in becoming a member of that segment are NOT in the righr place. I'm trying to point out if our goal was to only reach for software-freedom-religious folks who are heavily involved in it, we could still do a much better job for *them.* > my short answer to this is easy: > > newest != stable. Newest - 1 != stable either, since it gets abandoned in 6 months. Older than that != stable as well, since it's abandoned. I used to run rawhide. I retreated to newest release. Should I now retreat to newest release - 1 and update every 6 months to newest release - 1? If that's the case, totally fine, but I think then we need a little bit of rebranding. I don't think people like feeling that they are behind the curve, especially if they are your target user of techie! E.g. current model: 'Rawhide' = Rawhide = dear lord, no. 'Newest release' = F11 = hope you've got a thick skin. 'Newest release - 1' = F10 = okay, i can handle this. to this: 'Unstable Development' = Rawhide = dear lord, no. (no releases) 'Stable Development' = F11 = hope you've got a thick skin. (releases) 'Newest Release' = F10 = okay, i can handle that. (releases) You're not changing anything you're doing then, just renaming things. Just an idea; may or may not be the right problem to be solving. > Think back to RHL days. Remember the 'avoid the .0' strategy that A LOT > of people adopted? > > Every fedora release is more or less a .0. THAT IS BY DESIGN OF OUR GOALS. There is no x.1 then. There is nothing to use unless you want operating your computer to be a Sisyphean running-up-the-escalator-the-wrong-way affair. How does my tolerating that benefit Fedora though? There's no system for me (or others) to easily allow Fedora to reap any benefit of my blood; I just bleed in the corner, in vain. [1] So, if our target is people who are willing to submit themselves to pain for Fedora's benefit, our top priority should be building tools to reap the most benefit from their sacrifice [1], making it dead simple to identify and report the issue and follow up when the developer needs more information to fix the problem. All in all, it does sound like *I'm* not a target user for Fedora. In fact, it sounds like (please please please please correct me if I'm wrong) that the Fedora you and Mike are pushing for is not meant to be used as a productive desktop by anybody, rather it's meant to be a laboratory setting they submit themselves to for the benefit of science and progress! That makes me a sad panda, because I think I'm pretty extreme and even I don't hit the mark you've set. ~m [1] SORRY FOR THE DRAMAS! I have been reading a lot of vampire fiction lately. ;) From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 17:58:18 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:58:18 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015173330.GA3995@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> <20091015173330.GA3995@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1255629498.2894.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 13:33 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said: > > I do however, tend to agree with this user's conclusions: Fedora needs a > > measure of controlled stability and improved usability. > > > > I think there are a few things that we need to do to accomplish that: > > > > * Fedora needs a dedicated focus on usability. This is something that > > requires coordinating the efforts of designers and programmers, along > > with usability testing. I'm proud to have been able to take the first > > baby step towards that by providing Mo with a portable Usability lab, so > > we can begin gathering data and doing research, but there is much that > > still needs to be done. > > I'd agree here. I think I'm like many people here - I don't necessarily > have the ability to make good design, but I can recognize bad ones. A > non-trivial amount of software (that we ship, even!) falls into the bad > category, and it's because there wasn't much thought given to the design > when it was created (whether it's user interface, admin interface, or > even API design.) Doesn't this kind of thing only work where we're the upstream, or we have direct heavy influence on the upstream? How useful is pointing out terrible UI on software where we're just the packager, and upstream doesn't agree with us? We're no longer a community of producers, a large part of our contributors are just consuming upstream and putting it in Fedora. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 18:01:31 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:01:31 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <1255629498.2894.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> <20091015173330.GA3995@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1255629498.2894.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091015180130.GE3932@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: > > I'd agree here. I think I'm like many people here - I don't necessarily > > have the ability to make good design, but I can recognize bad ones. A > > non-trivial amount of software (that we ship, even!) falls into the bad > > category, and it's because there wasn't much thought given to the design > > when it was created (whether it's user interface, admin interface, or > > even API design.) > > Doesn't this kind of thing only work where we're the upstream, or we > have direct heavy influence on the upstream? How useful is pointing out > terrible UI on software where we're just the packager, and upstream > doesn't agree with us? We're no longer a community of producers, a > large part of our contributors are just consuming upstream and putting > it in Fedora. We make the decisions about what the defaults are, and what software is or isn't included in in a particular spin, or promoted in the docs, etc. It's not much of a carrot, but it can be used tha tway. Bill From pbrobinson at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 18:42:16 2009 From: pbrobinson at gmail.com (Peter Robinson) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:42:16 +0100 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015174600.GZ3348@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015152935.GC30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20091015174600.GZ3348@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <5256d0b0910151142o66f1aca6w903c12415cf37d79@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 11:29:36AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> inode0 (inode0 at gmail.com) said: >> > But I've been running Fedora as my primary desktop from F7 on and it >> > has been plenty stable for me to do my work. So I think Jeff is right, >> > it would be really nice to know more about the work they are doing >> > that exposes this "instability." >> >> So, I have a user I support that has been running Fedora as a desktop >> for many years now. I went for a couple of years without hearing any >> complaints aside from an OO.o bug. However, on upgrading to F-11 (from >> F-9), I hear about: >> >> - graphics artifacts on unblanking the display >> - constant wireless dropouts >> - odd behaviors in firefox >> >> This may be constrained to F-11 being not one of our better releases, >> but it's still not good if it's a trend. > > Which is exactly why I feel that we would be better served making a > better division between Rawhide and the stable releases. ?Spot's > proposal about update discipline seems like a pretty good start to me. I wondered why the new KDE release was actually pushed to F-11 as opposed to leaving the stable release train and having it in F-12. I didn't overly bother about it as I don't use KDE but I thought it was a bit strange pushing a new major desktop release to a stable release. Peter From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 18:51:05 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:51:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that. No one said we were advocating for it. And I think that's been a source of misunderstanding. I'm saying, given what our STATED goals are this is what results. If we want to change our goals then we should do that. > > I'm trying to point out if our goal was to only reach for > software-freedom-religious folks who are heavily involved in it, we could > still do a much better job for *them.* okay. >> my short answer to this is easy: >> >> newest != stable. > > Newest - 1 != stable either, since it gets abandoned in 6 months. Older than > that != stable as well, since it's abandoned. I used to run rawhide. I > retreated to newest release. Should I now retreat to newest release - 1 and > update every 6 months to newest release - 1? > > If that's the case, totally fine, but I think then we need a little bit of > rebranding. I don't think people like feeling that they are behind the curve, > especially if they are your target user of techie! E.g. current model: > > 'Rawhide' = Rawhide = dear lord, no. > 'Newest release' = F11 = hope you've got a thick skin. > 'Newest release - 1' = F10 = okay, i can handle this. > > to this: > > 'Unstable Development' = Rawhide = dear lord, no. (no releases) > 'Stable Development' = F11 = hope you've got a thick skin. (releases) > 'Newest Release' = F10 = okay, i can handle that. (releases) > > You're not changing anything you're doing then, just renaming things. Just an > idea; may or may not be the right problem to be solving. > >> Think back to RHL days. Remember the 'avoid the .0' strategy that A LOT >> of people adopted? >> >> Every fedora release is more or less a .0. THAT IS BY DESIGN OF OUR GOALS. > > There is no x.1 then. There is nothing to use unless you want operating your > computer to be a Sisyphean running-up-the-escalator-the-wrong-way affair. How > does my tolerating that benefit Fedora though? There's no system for me (or > others) to easily allow Fedora to reap any benefit of my blood; I just bleed > in the corner, in vain. [1] > > So, if our target is people who are willing to submit themselves to pain for > Fedora's benefit, our top priority should be building tools to reap the most > benefit from their sacrifice [1], making it dead simple to identify and > report the issue and follow up when the developer needs more information to > fix the problem. > > All in all, it does sound like *I'm* not a target user for Fedora. In fact, > it sounds like (please please please please correct me if I'm wrong) that the > Fedora you and Mike are pushing for is not meant to be used as a productive > desktop by anybody, rather it's meant to be a laboratory setting they submit > themselves to for the benefit of science and progress! Actually Mike and I aren't really pushing for it - we ARE pushing for us to be realistic about our goals vs what we are actually achieving. You know what this discussion says to me more than anything else: Lots of people claim to want fedora, but what they really want is centos. Not rhel. centos. why, you ask? b/c they want something that a lot of people spent a lot of time making stable and they want it secure and updated. and they want it all for free. -sv From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 18:57:27 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:57:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Seth Vidal wrote: > > You know what this discussion says to me more than anything else: > > Lots of people claim to want fedora, but what they really want is centos. > > Not rhel. > > centos. > > why, you ask? > > b/c they want something that a lot of people spent a lot of time making > stable and they want it secure and updated. > > and they want it all for free. > To be clear. I know centos cannot happen w/o rhel and rhel doesn't happen very easily w/o something like fedora. sure feels like fedora has our niche in the ecosystem - and some folks want us to move out of our biohabitat. Ask the frogs being forced further up the mountains in costa rica by climate change what hapens there... -sv From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 19:00:11 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015180130.GE3932@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> <20091015173330.GA3995@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1255629498.2894.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015180130.GE3932@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jesse Keating (jkeating at redhat.com) said: >>> I'd agree here. I think I'm like many people here - I don't necessarily >>> have the ability to make good design, but I can recognize bad ones. A >>> non-trivial amount of software (that we ship, even!) falls into the bad >>> category, and it's because there wasn't much thought given to the design >>> when it was created (whether it's user interface, admin interface, or >>> even API design.) >> >> Doesn't this kind of thing only work where we're the upstream, or we >> have direct heavy influence on the upstream? How useful is pointing out >> terrible UI on software where we're just the packager, and upstream >> doesn't agree with us? We're no longer a community of producers, a >> large part of our contributors are just consuming upstream and putting >> it in Fedora. > > We make the decisions about what the defaults are, and what software is > or isn't included in in a particular spin, or promoted in the docs, etc. > It's not much of a carrot, but it can be used tha tway. and, in the case of the g-p-m example Mo offered, our default is the problem? -sv From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 19:04:40 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:04:40 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <20091015190440.GE15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 02:51:05PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > >All in all, it does sound like *I'm* not a target user for Fedora. > >In fact, it sounds like (please please please please correct me if > >I'm wrong) that the Fedora you and Mike are pushing for is not > >meant to be used as a productive desktop by anybody, rather it's > >meant to be a laboratory setting they submit themselves to for the > >benefit of science and progress! > > Actually Mike and I aren't really pushing for it - we ARE pushing > for us to be realistic about our goals vs what we are actually > achieving. I would rather we set a goal that concerns what we want to achieve, and then work toward it, as opposed to setting our goal based on what we've been succeeding at so far. I understand where you're coming from, and the mismatch issue. Perhaps we meant somewhat the same thing but I think it's important to be explicit about what we're trying to do. > You know what this discussion says to me more than anything else: > Lots of people claim to want fedora, but what they really want is centos. > Not rhel. > centos. > why, you ask? > b/c they want something that a lot of people spent a lot of time > making stable and they want it secure and updated. > and they want it all for free. I think you're right that there are people out in Fedora-land who are still confused about this. But let's not confuse that with the issue that there are a crapton of people also out in Fedora-land who are perfectly happy to re-install or upgrade their systems every 6 months or so, even if that means a small batch of new, small growing pains -- as long as they know that (1) a month later, after those pains are solved, they don't reappear, grow, or get replaced unexpectedly with new and larger pains; and (2) they can get an accurate readout from us at release time as to the actual scope of the existing pains. I think there's a possible additional condition here, (3) we are making headway on constantly improving the reward vs. pain ratio that apply to some small assortment of user profiles. I think there's a clear case to be made that the reward portion has grown considerably -- maybe even radically -- over the last couple of years. But unfortunately the pain ratio hasn't dropped, and that's where we need to concentrate now. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 19:07:31 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:07:31 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <20091015190731.GF15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 02:57:27PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > To be clear. I know centos cannot happen w/o rhel and rhel doesn't > happen very easily w/o something like fedora. > > sure feels like fedora has our niche in the ecosystem - and some > folks want us to move out of our biohabitat. Ask the frogs being > forced further up the mountains in costa rica by climate change what > hapens there... A fair point. But I hear tell of a fish that once decided to hoof it on dry land, too. :-) -- 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 skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 19:11:42 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:11:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015190731.GF15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015190731.GF15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 02:57:27PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: >> To be clear. I know centos cannot happen w/o rhel and rhel doesn't >> happen very easily w/o something like fedora. >> >> sure feels like fedora has our niche in the ecosystem - and some >> folks want us to move out of our biohabitat. Ask the frogs being >> forced further up the mountains in costa rica by climate change what >> hapens there... > > A fair point. But I hear tell of a fish that once decided to hoof it > on dry land, too. :-) > You wanna take bets on the odds of survival for any given species? Smart money is not on any one having the survival trait. -sv From notting at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 19:21:04 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:21:04 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> <20091015173330.GA3995@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1255629498.2894.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015180130.GE3932@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091015192102.GC5957@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Seth Vidal (skvidal at fedoraproject.org) said: > >We make the decisions about what the defaults are, and what software is > >or isn't included in in a particular spin, or promoted in the docs, etc. > >It's not much of a carrot, but it can be used tha tway. > > and, in the case of the g-p-m example Mo offered, our default is the > problem? That seemed to me be more buggy implementation than design, but ICBW. Bill From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 19:22:59 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:22:59 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015190731.GF15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091015192259.GG15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 03:11:42PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > >On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 02:57:27PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > >>To be clear. I know centos cannot happen w/o rhel and rhel doesn't > >>happen very easily w/o something like fedora. > >> > >>sure feels like fedora has our niche in the ecosystem - and some > >>folks want us to move out of our biohabitat. Ask the frogs being > >>forced further up the mountains in costa rica by climate change what > >>hapens there... > > > >A fair point. But I hear tell of a fish that once decided to hoof it > >on dry land, too. :-) > > > > You wanna take bets on the odds of survival for any given species? > > Smart money is not on any one having the survival trait. Drat, I knew you'd just have to parry. ;-) In this case there's a sizable population of frogs wanting to move, as opposed to being forced out, and we have it on good authority that some other species are managing just fine at the destination. (Where species ~= software products.) Paul From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 15 20:03:55 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:03:55 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4AD7802B.400@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/15/2009 02:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >> Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that. > > No one said we were advocating for it. And I think that's been a source > of misunderstanding. I'm saying, given what our STATED goals are this is > what results. > If we want to change our goals then we should do that. Oh, okie, sorry for the misunderstanding! > You know what this discussion says to me more than anything else: > > Lots of people claim to want fedora, but what they really want is centos. I thought about this seriously. I tried to imagine myself using CentOS. I don't think it would work for me. I know it seems like I'm asking for a tall order, both stability and the latest technology. But I'm not asking for complete stability. I'm asking for just-enough stability. Fedora release today: stability [=====_______________] orange latest technology [====================] green CentOS (my perception): stability [=================___] green-yellow latest technology [=======_____________] yellow What I want: stability [==========__________] yellow latest technology [================____] green-yellow Should I be less stubborn about using Fedora? Am I making a mess of this thread? :( ~m From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Oct 15 20:21:45 2009 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:21:45 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <5256d0b0910151142o66f1aca6w903c12415cf37d79@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015152935.GC30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20091015174600.GZ3348@victoria.internal.frields.org> <5256d0b0910151142o66f1aca6w903c12415cf37d79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD78459.3020708@math.unl.edu> On 10/15/2009 01:42 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: ... >>> I hear about: >>> - graphics artifacts on unblanking the display >>> - constant wireless dropouts >>> - odd behaviors in firefox ... > I wondered why the new KDE release was actually pushed to F-11 as > opposed to leaving the stable release train and having it in F-12. I > didn't overly bother about it as I don't use KDE but I thought it was > a bit strange pushing a new major desktop release to a stable release. Not to side-step, but oh well, yeah, I'm going to in a bit. To answer your direct question, it's a tough call, but our (kde-sig) strong feeling that doing so provides the best of what we (both fedora and kde) have to offer, in terms of both stability (yes!) and features. Now for the 2-step... Seems to me a significant amount of the "stability" concerns involve low-level kernel/X (ie, hardcore crit path) type stuff, issues like primarily video drivers, and to a lesser extent, suspend/resume and wireless. In all of these areas, Fedora currently has significant attention and people-power working on them, including dedicated developers, QA/testing, etc... Despite that, if we're still (apparently?) falling short of expectations. Are we doomed, or can we do better somehow? -- Rex From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 15 20:25:04 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:25:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD78459.3020708@math.unl.edu> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015152935.GC30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20091015174600.GZ3348@victoria.internal.frields.org> <5256d0b0910151142o66f1aca6w903c12415cf37d79@mail.gmail.com> <4AD78459.3020708@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Rex Dieter wrote: > On 10/15/2009 01:42 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > ... > >>> I hear about: > >>> - graphics artifacts on unblanking the display > >>> - constant wireless dropouts > >>> - odd behaviors in firefox > ... > > I wondered why the new KDE release was actually pushed to F-11 as > > opposed to leaving the stable release train and having it in F-12. I > > didn't overly bother about it as I don't use KDE but I thought it was > > a bit strange pushing a new major desktop release to a stable release. > > > Not to side-step, but oh well, yeah, I'm going to in a bit. > > To answer your direct question, it's a tough call, but our (kde-sig) > strong feeling that doing so provides the best of what we (both fedora > and kde) have to offer, in terms of both stability (yes!) and features. > > Now for the 2-step... > > Seems to me a significant amount of the "stability" concerns involve > low-level kernel/X (ie, hardcore crit path) type stuff, issues like > primarily video drivers, and to a lesser extent, suspend/resume and > wireless. In all of these areas, Fedora currently has significant > attention and people-power working on them, including dedicated > developers, QA/testing, etc... Despite that, if we're still > (apparently?) falling short of expectations. > > Are we doomed, or can we do better somehow? > The KDE update is a perfect example for the experimental repo. You can still push out kde updates in updates testing, have them tested, have a stable normal release. but those that wanted a newer kde could have gotten it from the experimental repo. -Mike From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 20:45:53 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:45:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD7802B.400@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD7802B.400@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/15/2009 02:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >>> Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that. >> >> No one said we were advocating for it. And I think that's been a source >> of misunderstanding. I'm saying, given what our STATED goals are this is >> what results. >> If we want to change our goals then we should do that. > > Oh, okie, sorry for the misunderstanding! > >> You know what this discussion says to me more than anything else: >> >> Lots of people claim to want fedora, but what they really want is centos. > > I thought about this seriously. I tried to imagine myself using CentOS. I > don't think it would work for me. I know it seems like I'm asking for a tall > order, both stability and the latest technology. But I'm not asking for > complete stability. I'm asking for just-enough stability. > > Fedora release today: > > stability [=====_______________] orange > latest technology [====================] green > > CentOS (my perception): > > stability [=================___] green-yellow > latest technology [=======_____________] yellow > > What I want: > > stability [==========__________] yellow > latest technology [================____] green-yellow > > Should I be less stubborn about using Fedora? Am I making a mess of this > thread? :( I think the problem is that we'll get yelled at on the other end: "you're holding fedora back! What happened to latest and greatest?!" and "If people want stability they should go use rhel!" Like we have gotten whenever the subject of more stability has come up. -sv From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 15 20:52:59 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:52:59 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD7802B.400@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4AD78BAB.4010300@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/15/2009 04:45 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > I think the problem is that we'll get yelled at on the other end: > > "you're holding fedora back! What happened to latest and greatest?!" Who would say that? We've not ever tried this, have we? > "If people want stability they should go use rhel!" > Like we have gotten whenever the subject of more stability has come up. Stability is only one variable. This is why it's better to recommend a distro based on a full use-case rather than focus on one specific variable. Yes, RHEL is more stable. However, there's a dozen other variables in my use case that it does not match. Fedora release today: stability [=====_______________] orange latest technology [====================] green USER: I have no idea. Help? CentOS (my perception): stability [=================___] green-yellow latest technology [=======_____________] yellow USER: system administrator or home user wanting to offer network services or learn in order to be able to administer RHEL. What I want: stability [==========__________] yellow latest technology [================____] green-yellow USER: enthusiastic FOSS contributor looking to eat dogfood and expend some effort to help improve the dogfood flavor I don't care about a few loud angry people. There's going to be loud angry people no matter what we do. There's loud angry people right now. We need to pick a direction we believe in, and go with it. I'm not sure I can believe in Fedora as a science lab. I'd like to talk to some people who believe in that. You said yourself and Mike aren't advocating for it. Who is? Are we just standing in a circle beating on a poor old scarecrow? ~m From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 15 21:01:17 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:01:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD78BAB.4010300@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD7802B.400@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD78BAB.4010300@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/15/2009 04:45 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> I think the problem is that we'll get yelled at on the other end: >> >> "you're holding fedora back! What happened to latest and greatest?!" > > Who would say that? We've not ever tried this, have we? Look back in the archives preceeding the fedora core/extras merge. Look for the complaints on versions of stuff not being new enough. They are there. > Stability is only one variable. This is why it's better to recommend a distro > based on a full use-case rather than focus on one specific variable. Yes, > RHEL is more stable. However, there's a dozen other variables in my use case > that it does not match. > > Fedora release today: > > stability [=====_______________] orange > latest technology [====================] green > > USER: I have no idea. Help? > > > CentOS (my perception): > > stability [=================___] green-yellow > latest technology [=======_____________] yellow > > USER: system administrator or home user wanting to offer network services or > learn in order to be able to administer RHEL. > > > What I want: > > stability [==========__________] yellow > latest technology [================____] green-yellow > > USER: enthusiastic FOSS contributor looking to eat dogfood and expend some > effort to help improve the dogfood flavor Clearly this is an odd use of 'dogfood' I don't understand. > I don't care about a few loud angry people. There's going to be loud angry > people no matter what we do. There's loud angry people right now. We need to > pick a direction we believe in, and go with it. You seem to want us to care about a few loud angry people. Specifically the loud, angry people who have talked to you about fedora. > I'm not sure I can believe in Fedora as a science lab. I'd like to talk to > some people who believe in that. You said yourself and Mike aren't advocating > for it. Who is? Are we just standing in a circle beating on a poor old > scarecrow? Show me how we slow down without overlapping the RHEL case up there? B/c I'm not real sure there's all that much room. -sv From mairin at linuxgrrl.com Thu Oct 15 21:11:33 2009 From: mairin at linuxgrrl.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:11:33 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD7802B.400@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD78BAB.4010300@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4AD79005.4010501@linuxgrrl.com> On 10/15/2009 05:01 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > You seem to want us to care about a few loud angry people. Specifically > the loud, angry people who have talked to you about fedora. I'm lost, I'm not sure what you mean here :-/ >> I'm not sure I can believe in Fedora as a science lab. I'd like to >> talk to some people who believe in that. You said yourself and Mike >> aren't advocating for it. Who is? Are we just standing in a circle >> beating on a poor old scarecrow? > > Show me how we slow down without overlapping the RHEL case up there? B/c > I'm not real sure there's all that much room. * Focus on stabilizing a core of packages/applications, like folks are saying, a critical path. RHEL focuses on stabilizing a much wider breadth in comparison. * RHEL can not always carry the latest stable release of a given piece of software, can it? Fedora should always carry the latest stable. Fedora is released every 6 months. It's going to have newer versions compared to RHEL no matter what; RHEL's major release cycle is much slower than every 6 months and the amount of change allowed in minor updates is limited. Fedora's package set is newer in comparison. * Make it a priority to build tools in Fedora to make reporting the instabilities that do make it through a complete breeze to do. Also work on tools to make that stream of testing feedback dead easy for maintainers to consume. Drive for a greatly-elevated amount of community testing. Drive for the best signal-to-noise ratio on feedback so you don't overwhelm the developers with too much noise. This doesn't slow you down, but it makes faster speeds easier to tolerate. Do those make sense? Either way, the set of packages available in Fedora really trumps those available in RHEL, and as you pointed out with that greater amount of packages it's harder and harder to maintain stability across all. So you don't. You pick a core to make sure are stable, but the very presence of all the outliers differentiates Fedora as well. ~m From glezos at indifex.com Thu Oct 15 21:17:30 2009 From: glezos at indifex.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:17:30 +0300 Subject: About long self-definition discussions Message-ID: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> I beieve the long threads about what is Fedora are extremely valuable. But I also believe that we online/email is not the best place to have them. We have these excellent events called FUDCons and FADs. I believe the Board/RH should take a bold decision and sponsor the travel of a few key people to participate in the nearest event, and have a 4-hour workshop about our direction. Specifically, the Board should be there, as well as past Board members, key people in the community (eg. very active FESCo members etc), and anyone else wanting to participate in this discussion. Clearly, online talk isn't really leading anywhere. Or it leads somewhere in a very painful and slow way. -d -- Dimitris Glezos Transifex: The Multilingual Publishing Revolution http://www.transifex.net/ -- http://www.indifex.com/ From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 22:45:18 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:45:18 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015192259.GG15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015190731.GF15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091015192259.GG15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091015224518.GW30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 03:22:59PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> >A fair point. But I hear tell of a fish that once decided to hoof it >> >on dry land, too. :-) >> > >> >> You wanna take bets on the odds of survival for any given species? >> >> Smart money is not on any one having the survival trait. > >Drat, I knew you'd just have to parry. ;-) > >In this case there's a sizable population of frogs wanting to move, as >opposed to being forced out, and we have it on good authority that >some other species are managing just fine at the destination. (Where >species ~= software products.) You have lost me in the land of analogies and I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Who are the frogs, where are they at, and where do they want to move to? josh From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 23:13:03 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:13:03 -0400 Subject: About long self-definition discussions In-Reply-To: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> References: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091015231303.GP15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:17:30AM +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > I beieve the long threads about what is Fedora are extremely valuable. > But I also believe that we online/email is not the best place to have > them. > > We have these excellent events called FUDCons and FADs. I believe the > Board/RH should take a bold decision and sponsor the travel of a few > key people to participate in the nearest event, and have a 4-hour > workshop about our direction. Specifically, the Board should be there, > as well as past Board members, key people in the community (eg. very > active FESCo members etc), and anyone else wanting to participate in > this discussion. > > Clearly, online talk isn't really leading anywhere. Or it leads > somewhere in a very painful and slow way. I agree that the email threads are not ultimately going to lead to the best discussion possible. However, they're very much necessary to the transparency of the Fedora Project and the health of our community. Six of the Board members and I (missing you, John, and Josh) will be at FUDCon Toronto. In addition, six of the nine members of FESCo will be there. It's an excellent opportunity to get together, I agree, and I've already added at least one session for the Board: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon:Toronto_2009#Other_Scheduled_Meetings Because the discussions we're currently having on email have generated a number of interesting proposals and discussions thus far, however, I don't want to shut them down in favor of a "coming soon" discussion that most community members won't be around to see or hear. I've already been talking with Jon Stanley and a couple other FESCo folks about a joint session, and would be happy to write that in as well, but for that session to be successful, we first need to arrive at a set of questions that we can successfully answer at the event. I feel like the discussions happening on FAB are helping us make progress toward that point. I had intended to put together a preliminary list of those questions today but spent much of the day recovering from a week of absence and picking up the resulting loose threads. Tomorrow I'll be delving into that task more deeply. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 23:18:18 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:18:18 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015224518.GW30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015190731.GF15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091015192259.GG15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091015224518.GW30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20091015231818.GQ15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 06:45:18PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 03:22:59PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> >A fair point. But I hear tell of a fish that once decided to hoof it > >> >on dry land, too. :-) > >> > > >> > >> You wanna take bets on the odds of survival for any given species? > >> > >> Smart money is not on any one having the survival trait. > > > >Drat, I knew you'd just have to parry. ;-) > > > >In this case there's a sizable population of frogs wanting to move, as > >opposed to being forced out, and we have it on good authority that > >some other species are managing just fine at the destination. (Where > >species ~= software products.) > > You have lost me in the land of analogies and I have no idea what the hell > you are talking about. > > Who are the frogs, where are they at, and where do they want to move to? Irrelevant; Seth and I both realized this t?te ? t?te was silly, and I think we agreed our analogies weren't getting us anywhere. Best to address the problem explicitly. :-) Paul From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 23:45:44 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:45:44 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD79005.4010501@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD7802B.400@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD78BAB.4010300@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD79005.4010501@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <20091015234544.GX30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 05:11:33PM -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >> Show me how we slow down without overlapping the RHEL case up there? B/c >> I'm not real sure there's all that much room. > > * Focus on stabilizing a core of packages/applications, like folks are > saying, a critical path. RHEL focuses on stabilizing a much wider > breadth in comparison. We're already doing this in rawhide. I plan on trying to extend it to stable releases as well. I'm pretty sure we've said this in this thread about 15 times now as a "should", when in reality it's already an "are". (Not picking on you specifically, but we should really stop bringing this up as something new to try.) > * RHEL can not always carry the latest stable release of a given piece > of software, can it? Fedora should always carry the latest stable. > Fedora is released every 6 months. It's going to have newer versions > compared to RHEL no matter what; RHEL's major release cycle is much Newer versions does not equal 'latest stable'. Something we should all keep in mind: version numbers have a varied meaning (if they have a meaning at all) across the FOSS world. So if you're looking for 'latest stable' you can't blindly assume newer is better. (Yes, you probably know this. But if we're trying to be clear, we need to be crystal clear.) > * Make it a priority to build tools in Fedora to make reporting the > instabilities that do make it through a complete breeze to do. Also work Already doing this with ABRT. > on tools to make that stream of testing feedback dead easy for > maintainers to consume. Drive for a greatly-elevated amount of community Bodhi karma (+/-) is not dead easy to consume? Or did you mean 'dead easy for testers to submit'? I think we can make progress on the latter, but I'm not really sure how you can get much easier that the karma scheme we have today. Also, it doesn't matter how easy it is to consume if nobody bothers to _give_ feedback. So I think focus on increasing feedback is a better place to start. > don't. You pick a core to make sure are stable, but the very presence of > all the outliers differentiates Fedora as well. You said the 'C' word. You have no idea how hard we have tried to avoid the 'C' word in all the discussions and proposals about critical path. josh From rc040203 at freenet.de Fri Oct 16 03:37:05 2009 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:37:05 +0200 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <4AD7EA61.4090601@freenet.de> On 10/15/2009 05:04 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > >> On 10/15/2009 10:40 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: >>> And this is the crux of our problem: >>> >>> fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to >>> have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them. >>> >>> So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like >>> fedora is just not for you. >>> >>> how else do we set reasonable expectations? >> >> Apparently we were able to achieve both the latest and stability >> several releases ago, though? > > Not really. My view: Things have not been better. It's only the set of packages which are causing troubles, which has changed. ATM, the "troublemakers" happen to be packages which almost everybody has installed and almost everybody uses (TB, Firefox, X11, PackageKit, cups, pulseaudio, selinux ...). > I have a few explanations for this: > > 0. I suspect there is a fair bit of nostalgic memory going on here. > Things get better the more in the past you put them in your memory. It's > an evolutionary advantage to not remember suffering as well. :) Agreed, ... remember SELinux, NetworkManager, ... yum ;) > 1. at f6 things were still 'core and extras' and core meant @redhat.com > people only which, implicitly, meant things went slower. Well, have a look at the packages which currently are causing "the trouble" ... it's former "core packages", which are still being maintained by essentially the same people, rsp. the same teams, @RH. Ralf From mmcgrath at redhat.com Fri Oct 16 03:47:22 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:47:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD7EA61.4090601@freenet.de> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD7EA61.4090601@freenet.de> Message-ID: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/15/2009 05:04 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > > > > On 10/15/2009 10:40 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > > And this is the crux of our problem: > > > > > > > > fedora is for latest leading-edge pkgs. It's not easy or reasonable to > > > > have the latest of things AND have a stable interface for them. > > > > > > > > So if latest software is fedora's raison d'etre then it sure seems like > > > > fedora is just not for you. > > > > > > > > how else do we set reasonable expectations? > > > > > > Apparently we were able to achieve both the latest and stability > > > several releases ago, though? > > > > Not really. > My view: Things have not been better. It's only the set of packages which are > causing troubles, which has changed. > > ATM, the "troublemakers" happen to be packages which almost everybody has > installed and almost everybody uses (TB, Firefox, X11, PackageKit, cups, > pulseaudio, selinux ...). > > > I have a few explanations for this: > > > > 0. I suspect there is a fair bit of nostalgic memory going on here. > > Things get better the more in the past you put them in your memory. It's > > an evolutionary advantage to not remember suffering as well. :) > Agreed, ... remember SELinux, NetworkManager, ... yum ;) > > > 1. at f6 things were still 'core and extras' and core meant @redhat.com > > people only which, implicitly, meant things went slower. > > Well, have a look at the packages which currently are causing "the trouble" > ... it's former "core packages", which are still being maintained by > essentially the same people, rsp. the same teams, @RH. > While I'm not saying those packages aren't problems, your argument has confused correlation with causation. -Mike From smooge at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 04:17:48 2009 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:17:48 -0600 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD7802B.400@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD78BAB.4010300@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090910152117g721133b8maa8cec995c05ac68@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > >> I don't care about a few loud angry people. There's going to be loud angry >> people no matter what we do. There's loud angry people right now. We need to >> pick a direction we believe in, and go with it. > > You seem to want us to care about a few loud angry people. Specifically the > loud, angry people who have talked to you about fedora. > The ones I usually deal with are just really upset because they liked using things and its not working out anymore. And they don't want to get involved in anyway beyond telling someone they know because they don't want to deal with harsh emails. And yes this is pretty civil discourse but more emotional time than a lot of people who would like to deal with. > >> I'm not sure I can believe in Fedora as a science lab. I'd like to talk to >> some people who believe in that. You said yourself and Mike aren't >> advocating for it. Who is? Are we just standing in a circle beating on a >> poor old scarecrow? > > Show me how we slow down without overlapping the RHEL case up there? B/c I'm > not real sure there's all that much room. Well we have had 6 releases since the last EL release ... if anything we have sped up. A common questions for people in #rhel is "Why is EL-6 so late?" When asked how they get this opinion they go off the idea that EL-3 was F-0 (RHL9), EL-4 was F-3, EL-5 was F-6 so EL-6 should have been F-9... and now we are at F-12 so EL-6 must be late. [And yes the reasoning boggles my warped mind.. but it comes up quite a bit.] Fedora is by design to have every release to be .0.. that has its point and makes sense. RHEL is meant to be the good old .2 release that people lived by (I worked on a 6.2 box just a couple of months ago..) What seems to be missing is the .1 release where people get an idea of what spaghetti fell off the wall from the .0 and what might be left for the .2 someday. Or that someone who is new to Linux and wanting to get his feet wet but isn't sure if they have the energy for Fedora Drama(TM) . To be honest I am not sure if this is practically possible... it could be the pony, but like any pony lots of people want it. -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning From rc040203 at freenet.de Fri Oct 16 04:43:27 2009 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:43:27 +0200 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD7EA61.4090601@freenet.de> Message-ID: <4AD7F9EF.801@freenet.de> On 10/16/2009 05:47 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > While I'm not saying those packages aren't problems, your argument has > confused correlation with causation. No idea what you are trying to say. I my point is: Unlike what others say, I do not see any coorelation between "pre-Core<->Fedora"/"post-Core<->Fedora" merger and "stability" of the Fedora distro. Cause: The people in "Core" are the same. Ralf From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 16 04:45:31 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:15:31 +0530 Subject: About long self-definition discussions In-Reply-To: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> References: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD7FA6B.4000900@fedoraproject.org> On 10/16/2009 02:47 AM, Dimitris Glezos wrote: > I beieve the long threads about what is Fedora are extremely valuable. > But I also believe that we online/email is not the best place to have > them. > > We have these excellent events called FUDCons and FADs. I believe the > Board/RH should take a bold decision and sponsor the travel of a few > key people to participate in the nearest event, and have a 4-hour > workshop about our direction. Specifically, the Board should be there, > as well as past Board members, key people in the community (eg. very > active FESCo members etc), and anyone else wanting to participate in > this discussion. > > Clearly, online talk isn't really leading anywhere. Or it leads > somewhere in a very painful and slow way. That's ok. I don't want to have some people in a conference that majority of contributors cannot attend or participate make such a crucial decision sitting in a room. They can come with a proposal or multiple proposals but the decisions should be made in a mailing list where everyone else can pitch in their ideas too. Rahul From walters at verbum.org Fri Oct 16 05:52:17 2009 From: walters at verbum.org (Colin Walters) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:52:17 +0000 Subject: Desktop Proposal In-Reply-To: <20091015173026.GE19753@clingman.lan> References: <1255383527.4148.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255385805.4148.383.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1255386357.4148.386.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091015005527.GC16816@clingman.lan> <20091015031038.GE16816@clingman.lan> <20091015153156.GD30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20091015173026.GE19753@clingman.lan> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > So back to putting the fact that we build an opensource OS into the mission > statement -- Sure we do create an opensource OS... but that's nothing > special. ?What sets us apart on the OS front is that we create it from the > latest software and we are serious about contributing to upstream projects. > What sets us apart on the non-OS front is that we are working on enabling > non-coders and people who could care less about Fedora the OS to make > valuable contributions to us and the open source community as a whole. You argue this view well, and I see a lot of merit in it. Now, the model I generally look at for a lot of things is Mozilla, which I think is the best example of a project, a product, and a community. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Mitchell Baker (Mozilla foundation chair): "To its many supporters, Firefox is more than just software. It is also a mission: to keep the web free for everyone, and to ensure that no company can tilt the web to its advantage. To quote Ms. Baker, ?We succeeded because more people got engaged, helped us build a better product, and helped us get the product into the hands of people. We succeeded because of the mission.? Mozilla Firefox is about acommunity of people coming together to make a contribution to make their mark on the world ? if in a ubiquitous yet often overlooked area such as the internet ? and succeeding. It has helped the internet move forward by showing the world that browsers do matter.But more importantly, it is an affirmation: that even as common people, we do have the power to change the way things are if we worked together.The fact that we use Firefox is a testament to that truth." (found here: http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/software-services-applications/12597542-1.html ) But I think the inverse of this is also true - a mission, no matter how well thought of or noble, isn't very useful without a strong unifying *thing* (there can be multiple things maybe, but not 15,131 of them). From notting at redhat.com Fri Oct 16 16:16:46 2009 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:16:46 -0400 Subject: About long self-definition discussions In-Reply-To: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> References: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091016161645.GA18116@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Dimitris Glezos (glezos at indifex.com) said: > I beieve the long threads about what is Fedora are extremely valuable. > But I also believe that we online/email is not the best place to have > them. > > We have these excellent events called FUDCons and FADs. I believe the > Board/RH should take a bold decision and sponsor the travel of a few > key people to participate in the nearest event, and have a 4-hour > workshop about our direction. Specifically, the Board should be there, > as well as past Board members, key people in the community (eg. very > active FESCo members etc), and anyone else wanting to participate in > this discussion. > > Clearly, online talk isn't really leading anywhere. Or it leads > somewhere in a very painful and slow way. I'd prefer transparency to at least the direction discussions. Implementation is where you really need the doers to go off, meet, and do. Bill From jonstanley at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 17:41:16 2009 From: jonstanley at gmail.com (Jon Stanley) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:41:16 -0400 Subject: About long self-definition discussions In-Reply-To: <20091016161645.GA18116@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> <20091016161645.GA18116@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > I'd prefer transparency to at least the direction discussions. > Implementation is where you really need the doers to go off, meet, > and do. I'm of much the same opinion, however, the discussions about direction always proceed at a glacial pace in the media that we normally use (email, IRC). I would like something like a phone call where you have much higher bandwidth that could be open and transparent. The good news on that front is that a bunch of us are convening for a Fedora Talk FAD next weekend, with a stated goal being live event streaming. This is an excellent use case for that. From william.jon.mccann at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 17:43:55 2009 From: william.jon.mccann at gmail.com (William Jon McCann) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:43:55 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> Message-ID: <939dd5750910161043r52e4382dq741d5f7c028b36bb@mail.gmail.com> Hi Spot, >From an experience design perspective, here is the way I think it should be: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience This set of requirements came out of discussions with members of QE, rel-eng, and Desktop. Comments? If we can agree on these goals then we just have to figure out how make them happen. Thanks, Jon On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/14/2009 01:45 PM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >> - Fedora had been the favored Linux distro for both her and many of her >> prominent customers, including well-known government and military >> agencies. Up until FC6. Over the past two years, distros such as CentOS, >> SuSe, ?Ubuntu, Scientific Linux, and Oracle Linux are showing greater >> stability and thus customer interest has shifted away from Fedora. > > There is a certain amount of irony here, as FC6 was the last release > where the core was built, maintained, and updated solely by Red Hat. > > In many ways, Red Hat built Fedora internally (in those days) like it > did RHEL. There are obvious pros (and cons) to that approach, but I do > not think it is worthwhile spending too much time reflecting on the past. > > I do however, tend to agree with this user's conclusions: Fedora needs a > measure of controlled stability and improved usability. > > I think there are a few things that we need to do to accomplish that: > > * Fedora needs a dedicated focus on usability. This is something that > requires coordinating the efforts of designers and programmers, along > with usability testing. I'm proud to have been able to take the first > baby step towards that by providing Mo with a portable Usability lab, so > we can begin gathering data and doing research, but there is much that > still needs to be done. > > * Fedora needs a dedicated focus on QA. This is something where I feel > confident we are currently making solid progress, especially around > AutoQA, but we are not making enough noise about. The fact that Chris > Aillon (a Board member) was unaware of this initiative illustrates that > failing. :) Our improved Test Days and Bug Triage are wins, but we need > to continue to be more aggressive here, and try to find ways to involve > and incorporate our community. > > * Fedora needs to improve how it handles updates. Part of this problem > is defining what merits an update. Some of this is covered by the > Critical Path initiative, but I think we can build upon that foundation. > > Just off the top of my head, how about something like this: > > * Clearly mark Critical Path packages as such in Fedora infrastructure > * Critical Path packages may not do "enhancement" updates on a > non-rawhide release branch (exceptions permitted only with FESCo approval). > * Critical Path packages must have a QA test plan for updates to ensure > that there is no loss in functionality. > * Where applicable, the user experience should not change for a Critical > Path package as part of an update (with the notable exception of a bug > fix or security hole closed) > * Packages not defined as Critical Path are permitted to do > "enhancement" updates on a non-rawhide release branch, but are strongly > encouraged to minimize the amount and frequency of these updates. > * Any non-Critical Path update which alters the user experience must be > documented as a part of the update announcement, and announced to the > relevant mailing lists (perhaps all "enhancement" updates go out to > fedora-list?) > > FWIW, I also think that "updates-testing", as it is today, does not work > for Fedora. In all of my packages, I am lucky if I can convince even one > individual to provide karma on an update, and I have never managed more > than that, even when I know there are tens/hundreds of users aware of > the bug (and waiting for the update to fix it). A few ideas on how to > fix it: > > * Make a period of time in updates-testing mandatory for all updates. > This can still be overridden by "bodhi karma" votes from testers, but > nothing can be pushed directly to stable. I'm not a fan of this on its > own, as I think it will merely encourage people to game the system, as > we have seen before when individual maintainers have imposed similar > policies on their own packages... but if paired with my other idea... > > * Encourage community testing of updates-testing, via "Fedora kudos". If > every package had a list of functionalities and features, and > instructions on how to test those features, every update would be > reasonably testable by a competant Fedora user. Any user who tested an > update and indicated that it: > ?- No longer illustrated the bug it fixed. > ?- Functioned as expected and documented > Would receive "a Fedora kudo". (Heck, they'd even get one if they showed > that the update was broken, that's just as useful to know!) > We'd also give out kudos for users who help define the > functionalities/features of a Fedora package (with screenshots, testing > commands to run). Package maintainers can always sanity check these, and > we will also want to encourage folks to be doing peer review of such items. > > This requires some infrastructure to be built to enable this, but I > think the payoff potential here is huge. I'm hopeful that we can do this > as part of the next major milestone of the "Fedora Community" Moksha > project. > > ****** > > I am interested in hearing the thoughts of others around these ideas. > > ~spot > > _______________________________________________ > fedora-advisory-board mailing list > fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board > From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Oct 16 17:57:17 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:57:17 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <939dd5750910161043r52e4382dq741d5f7c028b36bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> <939dd5750910161043r52e4382dq741d5f7c028b36bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD8B3FD.5060807@redhat.com> On 10/16/2009 01:43 PM, William Jon McCann wrote: > Hi Spot, > >>From an experience design perspective, here is the way I think it should be: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience > > This set of requirements came out of discussions with members of QE, > rel-eng, and Desktop. > > Comments? If we can agree on these goals then we just have to figure > out how make them happen. Jon, This document... is a bit confusing to me honestly, because I'm not sure that the terms used are defined effectively. What is a "System Component"? When you refer to "the app they are using", are you talking about PackageKit? Yum? XChat? You mention integration tests, but provide no further vision there. I also tend to disagree with specific points, such as: * System updates may only be deferred for a short time after which they will be installed automatically. (I don't think we ever want to force updates down our users throats, as well intentioned as we may be. Then again, I might be confused because you seem to differentiate between "System updates" and "Application updates"). It sounds very much like you are advocating a "Service Pack" model, and I'm not sure that is functionally sane or even desirable. Then again, I could be reading this wrong. I think that in general, users only care about updates when they break something. I'd rather focus on improving the quality (and decreasing the quantity of) our updates than spend a lot of time worrying about bundling and delivery times and locations. ~spot From william.jon.mccann at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 19:06:49 2009 From: william.jon.mccann at gmail.com (William Jon McCann) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:06:49 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD8B3FD.5060807@redhat.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> <939dd5750910161043r52e4382dq741d5f7c028b36bb@mail.gmail.com> <4AD8B3FD.5060807@redhat.com> Message-ID: <939dd5750910161206k62adb20bpe281f319704f1ccb@mail.gmail.com> Hi, On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 10/16/2009 01:43 PM, William Jon McCann wrote: >> Hi Spot, >> >>>From an experience design perspective, here is the way I think it should be: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience >> >> This set of requirements came out of discussions with members of QE, >> rel-eng, and Desktop. >> >> Comments? ?If we can agree on these goals then we just have to figure >> out how make them happen. > > Jon, > > This document... is a bit confusing to me honestly, because I'm not sure > that the terms used are defined effectively. What is a "System > Component"? When you refer to "the app they are using", are you talking > about PackageKit? Yum? XChat? A System Component at least to first approximation is anything that is not an Application. An Application is something like Firefox. A System Component is something like upstart. A rule of thumb may be that if we want something to have an identity then it is very likely an App. I realize that this is a very subtle distinction for many engineers. However, there is a very fundamental difference for users (and therefore for experience designers). > You mention integration tests, but provide no further vision there. Yeah hopefully the people that will be interested in doing this will have more input there. > I also tend to disagree with specific points, such as: > > * System updates may only be deferred for a short time after which they > will be installed automatically. > > (I don't think we ever want to force updates down our users throats, as > well intentioned as we may be. Then again, I might be confused because > you seem to differentiate between "System updates" and "Application > updates"). Yes, realizing the difference between System updates and Application updates is key to understanding this. > It sounds very much like you are advocating a "Service Pack" model, and > I'm not sure that is functionally sane or even desirable. No, it is not the same as a service pack really. > Then again, I could be reading this wrong. > > I think that in general, users only care about updates when they break > something. I'd rather focus on improving the quality (and decreasing the > quantity of) our updates than spend a lot of time worrying about > bundling and delivery times and locations. Hmm, I probably didn't do a very good job getting the point across in that page. I'm trying to describe the experience we want to provide from a design point of view. I don't think you have a chance of improving anything until you can consider an update to be more than just a new package. Jon From tcallawa at redhat.com Fri Oct 16 20:02:36 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:02:36 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <939dd5750910161206k62adb20bpe281f319704f1ccb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD618D1.6020206@redhat.com> <939dd5750910161043r52e4382dq741d5f7c028b36bb@mail.gmail.com> <4AD8B3FD.5060807@redhat.com> <939dd5750910161206k62adb20bpe281f319704f1ccb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD8D15C.9030603@redhat.com> On 10/16/2009 03:06 PM, William Jon McCann wrote: > Hmm, I probably didn't do a very good job getting the point across in > that page. I'm trying to describe the experience we want to provide > from a design point of view. I don't think you have a chance of > improving anything until you can consider an update to be more than > just a new package. So, I think I agree with everything in this paragraph. :) I would be interested to see if you could flesh this information out quite a bit more. Specifically, I'd like to see some tangible examples of what this model would look like, from the perspective of a packager and from the perspective of a user. I'd like to know what (if any) changes would need to be made to Fedora's infrastructure (koji, bodhi) as well as to Fedora (the Linux distribution). I'd even love to see some mockups illustrating how this is different/improved. I suspect there are some very good and useful ideas in here, I just want to have them clarified and brought out for others (like me) to understand and help implement. ~spot From a.badger at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 21:42:22 2009 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:42:22 -0700 Subject: About long self-definition discussions In-Reply-To: References: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> <20091016161645.GA18116@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20091016214222.GD23555@clingman.lan> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 01:41:16PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > I'd prefer transparency to at least the direction discussions. > > Implementation is where you really need the doers to go off, meet, > > and do. > > I'm of much the same opinion, however, the discussions about direction > always proceed at a glacial pace in the media that we normally use > (email, IRC). I would like something like a phone call where you have > much higher bandwidth that could be open and transparent. The good > news on that front is that a bunch of us are convening for a Fedora > Talk FAD next weekend, with a stated goal being live event streaming. > This is an excellent use case for that. > Perhaps the reason it proceeds at a glacial pace is not that email and IRC are low bandwidth compared to phone but because there are a lot of competing directions that no one wants to be left out as the direction is defined. I could definitely get together with a small number of people via phone and come up with a direction. But I could also do that over IRC or even email. Coming up with a direction that suits the large number of people who are contributors to Fedora and have an interest in making sure their idea of the direction Fedora should move is no easier over phone... perhaps even worse over phone since a number of people will not be as able to participate in the phone conversation due to language differences. So you could think that you've reached a consensus over the phone but find that even people who were on the call do not like the outcome. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nigjones at redhat.com Fri Oct 16 22:30:29 2009 From: nigjones at redhat.com (Nigel Jones) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: About long self-definition discussions In-Reply-To: <1914609.341255731917928.JavaMail.nigjones@njones.bne.redhat.com> Message-ID: <25658980.361255732227233.JavaMail.nigjones@njones.bne.redhat.com> ----- "Jon Stanley" wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Bill Nottingham > wrote: > > > I'd prefer transparency to at least the direction discussions. > > Implementation is where you really need the doers to go off, meet, > > and do. > > I'm of much the same opinion, however, the discussions about > direction > always proceed at a glacial pace in the media that we normally use > (email, IRC). I would like something like a phone call where you > have > much higher bandwidth that could be open and transparent. The good > news on that front is that a bunch of us are convening for a Fedora > Talk FAD next weekend, with a stated goal being live event streaming. > This is an excellent use case for that. Okay, but with Fedora as a global community how are we going to find a time for everyone to participate on such a call? Stop the clocks???? - Nigel From foss.mailinglists at gmail.com Fri Oct 16 22:33:31 2009 From: foss.mailinglists at gmail.com (sankarshan) Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:03:31 +0530 Subject: About long self-definition discussions In-Reply-To: References: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> <20091016161645.GA18116@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <35586fc00910161533y7c853212x98df5080c969be39@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Jon Stanley wrote: > I'm of much the same opinion, however, the discussions about direction > always proceed at a glacial pace in the media that we normally use > (email, IRC). ?I would like something like a phone call where you have > much higher bandwidth that could be open and transparent. The benefit of an email/forum/blog based discussion, in spite of the tendency to spin out of direction, is that it allows those who cannot make it to the "exclusive" events to be involved and, perhaps end up providing constructive ideas. Specific to the "What is Fedora" thread, an open-ended introspection would actually lead to that mail deluge ;) -- sankarshan mukhopadhyay Sent from Pune, MH, India From poelstra at redhat.com Fri Oct 16 23:42:07 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:42:07 -0700 Subject: About long self-definition discussions In-Reply-To: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> References: <6d4237680910151417g33bd9fd6x1f14c58508b64166@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4AD904CF.2030004@redhat.com> Dimitris Glezos said the following on 10/15/2009 02:17 PM Pacific Time: > I beieve the long threads about what is Fedora are extremely valuable. > But I also believe that we online/email is not the best place to have > them. > > We have these excellent events called FUDCons and FADs. I believe the > Board/RH should take a bold decision and sponsor the travel of a few > key people to participate in the nearest event, and have a 4-hour > workshop about our direction. Specifically, the Board should be there, > as well as past Board members, key people in the community (eg. very > active FESCo members etc), and anyone else wanting to participate in > this discussion. > > Clearly, online talk isn't really leading anywhere. Or it leads > somewhere in a very painful and slow way. > > -d > Thanks for raising this. I've thought this for a long time, even before the current discussions we have going on now... that the board should meet in person for a couple days once each year to discuss and resolve issues like this and that it would be a reasonable funding request to make to Red Hat. Topics like this are difficult to resolve in our once per week, hour long meetings. Meeting in person for a concentrated block of time would make it easier. John From bruno at wolff.to Sat Oct 17 01:19:00 2009 From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:19:00 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD78459.3020708@math.unl.edu> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <4AD60E45.5040208@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD645C1.1060303@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015152935.GC30108@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20091015174600.GZ3348@victoria.internal.frields.org> <5256d0b0910151142o66f1aca6w903c12415cf37d79@mail.gmail.com> <4AD78459.3020708@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20091017011900.GD31658@wolff.to> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 15:21:45 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Seems to me a significant amount of the "stability" concerns involve > low-level kernel/X (ie, hardcore crit path) type stuff, issues like > primarily video drivers, and to a lesser extent, suspend/resume and > wireless. In all of these areas, Fedora currently has significant > attention and people-power working on them, including dedicated > developers, QA/testing, etc... Despite that, if we're still > (apparently?) falling short of expectations. > > Are we doomed, or can we do better somehow? There is a lot of change going on in graphics driver infrastructure right now (and for over a year). I think that this is related to why graphics support has been so spotty in recent releases. There is light at the end of the tunnel. I had been hoping F12 would be a really nice release for graphics, but that will probably end up being F13 (with F12 getting fixes along the way) for people using intel and ati devices. nouveau has some future promise, but working 3d is probably going to be farther out than F13 unless more resources get committed to it. From ken at chiltonfamily.org Sat Oct 10 19:57:49 2009 From: ken at chiltonfamily.org (Ken Chilton) Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:57:49 -0400 Subject: Beta packages within stable releases Message-ID: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> Dear members of the Fedora Board, I wish to encourage you to reconsider the policies regarding packages in Fedora releases. Currently, within Fedora 11, there are key packages being distributed which are still in beta or otherwise unstable condition with matching, prior stable packages available. Fedora 11, as best as I can tell, is not a beta or development release. There used to be a practice in all things Linux where even-numbered release numbers implied stable releases, where odd-numbered releases were development tracks. The Linux kernel follows such a scheme, with 2.4.x and 2.6.x being the (more) stable. I am unaware that Fedora 11 is following this scheme. Please correct me if I am mistaken. It also might be nice to modify the Fedora Project web page to indicate that release 11 is a development platform and provide clear links to Fedora 10. Two packages of particular note and suitable as exemplars are Firefox and Thunderbird. These are well-known and basic to the Fedora release for most users. While many Linux developers produce high-quality betas and releases, these two packages are worth special attention. Firefox 3.5.3-1 has both a memory leak and a problem with CPU usage. When left open for more than a day, with several tabs used, the package steadily increases its memory consumption from a few hundred megabytes to over 1.6 gigabytes. The CPU consumption, on a multicore AMD machine, has been observed to start at 40% while minimized to 100% after a few hours on non-use. Users of the latest versions of Firefox have found that frequent killing of the Firefox process and restarting is required (this is on Fedora, not Windows). While this problem has existed to some small degree in the past, the latest versions are actually much worse, contrary to the Firefox developers' claims. While the Firefox community continues to struggle with fixes, removal of add-ins, and other attempts to locate the source of the problems and placate their users on all platforms, Fedora continues to adopt the latest buggy release of the tool as it is unleashed. It would seem prudent that Fedora have some degree of QA concerning the packages it considers key. A web browser is one of the features that everyone from the mere novice to the staunch professional requires. Fedora should select the best browser available, and not just the most recent or the one with the most features. It would seem appropriate that Fedora should refuse to move forward to newer releases of packages that move backward in quality. Fedora Project should implement its own QA and select the stable releases for its stable releases. This might also be of benefit to the Firefox developers, who can spend more time chasing down the problems Fedora has implicated, and less time trying to run and tie their shoelaces at the same time. Thunderbird 3 is currently undergoing many changes. While developers continue to add more features and new development versions are released, those working on the coding and testing of the new features are not at all disturbed by the frequent changes to the UI and other characteristics of the tool. However, those who depend on the email facilities in Fedora are likely quite worried when Thunderbird pops up a dire warning about using a beta package for real life. Anyone who would be furious when all of their email, current and filed, is lost because the beta package did what we were told it /could/ do. A user who expects to take a quick check of his email and finds that the whole UI has changed, his preferences gone, and previously admissible email now finds a home in the junk mail abyss might be a bit perturbed by the advent of Fedora 11. It would seem quite reasonable that Fedora 11beta would include beta releases, but "Fedora 11 Release" should have only included Thunderbird 2 in the "release" repository, with Thunderbird 3 in the "testing" one. If during the beta phase of Fedora, a package cannot be deemed stable, it should either be excluded from Fedora or Fedora should revert to the prior, stable version of that package. Beta software is not intended for production environments. Anyone who needs the email to work will not want to rely on a beta package. Thunderbird 3 has become a black mark on Fedora 11 and something I hope the Fedora Project plans never to repeat. So, I hope this email will be received in a positive light. I suspect you may have already heard from many others, since this seems too big to ignore. I hope that we might see a change in the Fedora Project to provide stable releases to the community while not hampering development. This might mean adoption of the even/odd scheme, or a more formal QA criteria and process, or maybe just slowing down the alpha/beta phases to allow more testing before calling it a release. I believe some of what has happened was in hope for the best, but in the end there must be a right solution and that is the one that considers the consumer. Please remember that the consumer wants quality, not just quantity. Feel free to contact me if anything I have said is unclear, incomplete, or incorrect. Thank you for all of your hard work in making Fedora and making it great! Thank you, KC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ken at chiltonfamily.org Sun Oct 11 12:21:21 2009 From: ken at chiltonfamily.org (Ken Chilton) Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:21:21 -0400 Subject: Beta packages within stable releases In-Reply-To: <4AD1AEBD.3090608@kanarip.com> References: <4AD0E73D.2080707@chiltonfamily.org> <4AD1AEBD.3090608@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4AD1CDC1.6040408@chiltonfamily.org> On 10/11/2009 06:09 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Ken Chilton wrote: >>> There used to be a practice in all things Linux where even-numbered >>> release numbers implied stable releases, where >>> odd-numbered releases were development tracks. The Linux kernel >>> follows such a scheme, with 2.4.x and 2.6.x being the >>> (more) stable. > > *Did follow such a scheme, but no longer. There is no 2.7.x for kinky > development thingies for 2.8.x like there was 2.5.x for kinky 2.6.x > development thingies, afaik. Correct. The kernel developers changed to a four number scheme (e.g. 2.6.30.5, 2.6.31.5) for stable releases, with the last number a bugfix iteration, over the course from late 2005 (when the new unstable 2.7.x would have started, if not for the change) up to today. The current development/unstable for 2.6.32 is in the form 2.6.32-[rcx]-next (e.g. 2.6.32-rc3-next, which is the current unstable tree). KC From fhornain at gmail.com Tue Oct 13 20:41:03 2009 From: fhornain at gmail.com (Frederic Hornain) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:41:03 +0200 Subject: [FOSDEM'10] News Message-ID: <3161376e0910131341r3457a9ddu4a0b19b8a89e47d@mail.gmail.com> Dear *, FYI, you can have all details/status about the Fedora at FOSDEM'10 project at the following URL : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FOSDEM_2010_Organization Gerold, Thanks a lot to us in touch. Just in order to be clear with the Fedora community. Best Regards Frederic Hornain :) -- ----------------------------------------------------- Fedora-ambassadors-list mailing list Fedora-ambassadors-list at redhat.com Olpc mailing list olpc-open at laptop.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From craftjml at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 19:00:20 2009 From: craftjml at gmail.com (Jud Craft) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:00:20 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <20d6441a0910151200j5530253es5d03640ded547278@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > Lots of people claim to want fedora, but what they really want is centos. > > why, you ask? > > b/c they want something that a lot of people spent a lot of time making > stable and they want it ?secure and updated. I think you've set up a false dilemma here. I can either choose between Fedora, or between something "stable, secure and updated"? I was always under the impression that Fedora was stable and secure, but featured the latest software, rather than a "frozen-in-time for enterprise" software suite. "Stable and secure and updated" are NOT exclusive qualities to CentOS. If Fedora isn't at least trying to aim for those, then the "latest and greatest in open source software" isn't worth it. From craftjml at gmail.com Thu Oct 15 23:03:19 2009 From: craftjml at gmail.com (Jud Craft) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:03:19 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091015224518.GW30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091015190731.GF15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091015192259.GG15228@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091015224518.GW30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20d6441a0910151603m76004c0ck248a47be75a19897@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 03:22:59PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >>In this case there's a sizable population of frogs wanting to move, as >>opposed to being forced out, and we have it on good authority that >>some other species are managing just fine at the destination. ?(Where >>species ~= software products.) > > > Who are the frogs, where are they at, and where do they want to move to? I think he's implying... "Frogs" are Linux distributions that, like Fedora, are being pushed from the ecosystem of "less regard for stability" toward the difficult path of "a balance between up-to-dateness and stability". He's implying that other distributions feel the same pressures, that some have tried to make the adjustment, and that the results have turned out good for them. I think. I'm not sure. From mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Oct 21 14:51:05 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:51:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: New Contributors Message-ID: Is anyone currently working on a better wizard for new contributors? I've had several come to Infrastructure in just the last couple of days. Many of them had no idea what to do next other then "they wanted to be a developer" or "wanted to contribute to Fedora." I've noticed the more lost they are (IE: the more wide their focus is) the more lost I am to tell them where to go next. -Mike From herlo1 at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 14:56:56 2009 From: herlo1 at gmail.com (Clint Savage) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:56:56 -0600 Subject: New Contributors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Is anyone currently working on a better wizard for new contributors? ?I've > had several come to Infrastructure in just the last couple of days. ?Many > of them had no idea what to do next other then "they wanted to be a > developer" or "wanted to contribute to Fedora." ?I've noticed the more > lost they are (IE: the more wide their focus is) the more lost I am to > tell them where to go next. > > ? ? ? ?-Mike Mike, To answer you question. Yes, we are. Now I can't say that our solution considers many of the items you mentioned, but it directly addresses Joining the project and deals with the knowledge and flow. However, it's currently only intended to be used at conferences. The project is called Fedora Event Splash (or FEZ if you don't like the long name) We had a FAD about it at UTOSC 2009 and the overwhelming thing that kept coming up was how confusing it was to join the project if you didn't have any idea how you wanted to proceed. Ian and I have a hackfest for it at FUDCon where we plan to start development on it so we could sure use some input. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-event-splash/wiki Cheers, Clint From stickster at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 15:42:14 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:42:14 -0400 Subject: New Contributors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20091021154214.GT933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:56:56AM -0600, Clint Savage wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > Is anyone currently working on a better wizard for new contributors? ?I've > > had several come to Infrastructure in just the last couple of days. ?Many > > of them had no idea what to do next other then "they wanted to be a > > developer" or "wanted to contribute to Fedora." ?I've noticed the more > > lost they are (IE: the more wide their focus is) the more lost I am to > > tell them where to go next. > > > > ? ? ? ?-Mike > > Mike, > > To answer you question. Yes, we are. Now I can't say that our > solution considers many of the items you mentioned, but it directly > addresses Joining the project and deals with the knowledge and flow. > However, it's currently only intended to be used at conferences. The > project is called Fedora Event Splash (or FEZ if you don't like the > long name) > > We had a FAD about it at UTOSC 2009 and the overwhelming thing that > kept coming up was how confusing it was to join the project if you > didn't have any idea how you wanted to proceed. Ian and I have a > hackfest for it at FUDCon where we plan to start development on it so > we could sure use some input. > > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-event-splash/wiki This could easily be the first step in a larger process, which Luke Macken has also been discussing with a number of people. Clint had mentioned at UTOSC the idea of having this new splash be a Moksha app to make it easier to grow and integrate later with the Fedora Community portal. He also posted this a couple of weeks ago: http://sexysexypenguins.com/2009/10/08/fedora-fad-utosc-2009-fedora-event-splash-aka-fes/ -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 21:01:36 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:01:36 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> Message-ID: <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 01:46:56PM -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/15/2009 12:18 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > >And I think the point that Mike and I have been making on this list is > >that given the claimed goals of fedora we shouldn't expect people who > >are not religious about free software and heavily involved to get > >ANYTHING out of fedora. > > Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that. > > What I'm telling you here, though, is that I *am* the target user > you're advocating for (freetard/zealot, techie, contributor), and at > times I'm at my wit's end trying to use !rawhide Fedora. > > >In short we have a choice: > >1. change the goals of fedora > > > >OR > > > >2. tell people we are intending for a small segment of the over > >population and those folks who are not in that segment and/or are not > >interested in becoming a member of that segment are NOT in the righr place. > > I'm trying to point out if our goal was to only reach for > software-freedom-religious folks who are heavily involved in it, we > could still do a much better job for *them.* A point that occurred to me that didn't make it into the conversation: If anyone needs a user case less specific than Mairin, imagine a Fedora Ambassador for instance. Surely we don't want to say to an Ambassador, "Please contribute by promoting Fedora, but we'd rather you adjust to our way of thinking rather than us accommodating you"? -- 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 skvidal at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 21 21:04:36 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:04:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 01:46:56PM -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >> On 10/15/2009 12:18 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >>> And I think the point that Mike and I have been making on this list is >>> that given the claimed goals of fedora we shouldn't expect people who >>> are not religious about free software and heavily involved to get >>> ANYTHING out of fedora. >> >> Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that. >> >> What I'm telling you here, though, is that I *am* the target user >> you're advocating for (freetard/zealot, techie, contributor), and at >> times I'm at my wit's end trying to use !rawhide Fedora. >> >>> In short we have a choice: >>> 1. change the goals of fedora >>> >>> OR >>> >>> 2. tell people we are intending for a small segment of the over >>> population and those folks who are not in that segment and/or are not >>> interested in becoming a member of that segment are NOT in the righr place. >> >> I'm trying to point out if our goal was to only reach for >> software-freedom-religious folks who are heavily involved in it, we >> could still do a much better job for *them.* > > A point that occurred to me that didn't make it into the conversation: > If anyone needs a user case less specific than Mairin, imagine a > Fedora Ambassador for instance. Surely we don't want to say to an > Ambassador, "Please contribute by promoting Fedora, but we'd rather > you adjust to our way of thinking rather than us accommodating you"? > Why not? If you change to whatever the latest group of users wants then you're not leading, you're following. -sv From smooge at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 21:40:15 2009 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:40:15 -0600 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <80d7e4090910211440v2349ef97x1550d97a3e4d71a3@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 01:46:56PM -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >>> >>> On 10/15/2009 12:18 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: >>>> >>>> And I think the point that Mike and I have been making on this list is >>>> that given the claimed goals of fedora we shouldn't expect people who >>>> are not religious about free software and heavily involved to get >>>> ANYTHING out of fedora. >>> >>> Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that. >>> >>> What I'm telling you here, though, is that I *am* the target user >>> you're advocating for (freetard/zealot, techie, contributor), and at >>> times I'm at my wit's end trying to use !rawhide Fedora. >>> >>>> In short we have a choice: >>>> 1. change the goals of fedora >>>> >>>> OR >>>> >>>> 2. tell people we are intending for a small segment of the over >>>> population and those folks who are not in that segment and/or are not >>>> interested in becoming a member of that segment are NOT in the righr >>>> place. >>> >>> I'm trying to point out if our goal was to only reach for >>> software-freedom-religious folks who are heavily involved in it, we >>> could still do a much better job for *them.* >> >> A point that occurred to me that didn't make it into the conversation: >> If anyone needs a user case less specific than Mairin, imagine a >> Fedora Ambassador for instance. ?Surely we don't want to say to an >> Ambassador, "Please contribute by promoting Fedora, but we'd rather >> you adjust to our way of thinking rather than us accommodating you"? >> > > Why not? If you change to whatever the latest group of users wants then > you're not leading, you're following. And vice versa.. if you don't listen and adapt you end up behind what people would ever want to use. Its a conversation not a dictation which I think we have forgotten in our current society. -- Stephen J Smoogen. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for? -- Robert Browning From stickster at gmail.com Wed Oct 21 23:11:00 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:11:00 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090910211440v2349ef97x1550d97a3e4d71a3@mail.gmail.com> References: <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <80d7e4090910211440v2349ef97x1550d97a3e4d71a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091021231100.GJ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 03:40:15PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 01:46:56PM -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > >>> > >>> On 10/15/2009 12:18 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > >>>> > >>>> And I think the point that Mike and I have been making on this list is > >>>> that given the claimed goals of fedora we shouldn't expect people who > >>>> are not religious about free software and heavily involved to get > >>>> ANYTHING out of fedora. > >>> > >>> Sure, and I think you guys have done a good job advocating for that. > >>> > >>> What I'm telling you here, though, is that I *am* the target user > >>> you're advocating for (freetard/zealot, techie, contributor), and at > >>> times I'm at my wit's end trying to use !rawhide Fedora. > >>> > >>>> In short we have a choice: > >>>> 1. change the goals of fedora > >>>> > >>>> OR > >>>> > >>>> 2. tell people we are intending for a small segment of the over > >>>> population and those folks who are not in that segment and/or are not > >>>> interested in becoming a member of that segment are NOT in the righr > >>>> place. > >>> > >>> I'm trying to point out if our goal was to only reach for > >>> software-freedom-religious folks who are heavily involved in it, we > >>> could still do a much better job for *them.* > >> > >> A point that occurred to me that didn't make it into the conversation: > >> If anyone needs a user case less specific than Mairin, imagine a > >> Fedora Ambassador for instance. ?Surely we don't want to say to an > >> Ambassador, "Please contribute by promoting Fedora, but we'd rather > >> you adjust to our way of thinking rather than us accommodating you"? > >> > > > > Why not? If you change to whatever the latest group of users wants then > > you're not leading, you're following. > > And vice versa.. if you don't listen and adapt you end up behind what > people would ever want to use. Its a conversation not a dictation > which I think we have forgotten in our current society. Let me try this again with some better explanation. I think a Fedora Ambassador -- and let's say an experienced one -- makes a good example of someone who subscribes to our foundations and is interested in, and in fact is currently, contributing to Fedora. I think the decisions we make around the distribution should not make it harder for this Ambassador to promote or to use Fedora. As an alternative to personalizing the target case to Mairin Duffy -- not that she doesn't provide a good profile -- I think a generic, experienced Fedora Ambassador works well. -- 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 duffy at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 22 00:19:20 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:19:20 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <604aa7910910141234t7f07d866gf702cc88fb96be93@mail.gmail.com> <80d7e4090910141952r6d527fa7ra715a7498cc210f4@mail.gmail.com> <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> On 10/21/2009 05:04 PM, Seth Vidal wrote: > Why not? If you change to whatever the latest group of users wants then > you're not leading, you're following. I messaged Seth on IRC for a bit more clarification on this tonight and ended up having an enlightening discussion which I then continued with Adam Jackson and Luke Macken on my bus ride home. :) So here is one idea I have to throw out there, in some part informed by those discussion. This is just a strawman! I'm not making any grand proclamations. But I'd love to hear what you think with that in mind, because I'd like us to make some forward progress from this thread (and I really, really need a target user so I can get my job done! ;-) ) Fedora is two things. 1) Fedora is a community that builds software, a set of projects on fedorahosted.org, a set of spins on spins.fedoraproject.org - it's basically a development platform for creating free & open source software and applying free & open source software towards solving specific problems. 2) Fedora is a desktop distribution. Specifically focusing on #2, I would like to suggest that the target user for Fedora the desktop distribution is a person of RHCT or equivalent technical skill who would like to check their webmail in a browser. Points: - What is meant by 'RHCT or equivalent' is that this is a person who does not need to have 'using a mouse,' 'drag and drop', 'browser tabs', and 'right click menus' explained to them. He/she gets it. This is a person who feels comfortable installing their computer on their own, burning DVDs, and if pointed to instructions, is comfortable opening up a terminal and running commands or installing non-packaged software as instructed (to work around issues, e.g., adding extra yum repos or installing non-free video card drivers from a tarball if provided some direction.) - What is not meant by RHCT or equivalent: the person does not necessarily have to be a Fedora user. He or she could have the equivalent level of comfort with Windows or OS X never having touched a Linux distro, or Fedora specifically. If this person is a Windows user, they're a power user and maybe comfortable with installing some of the tweak UI bits for that, or in OS X are comfortable working in the terminal or have ports configured. So the story I would like to design to, from the Fedora website to running the desktop is: I am a person who is comfortable with computers. I hear about Fedora. I go to the Fedora website. The Fedora website appeals to me and convinces me that it's something worth trying. I find a download of Fedora that will work for me quickly and without stress. I am able to download that file and manipulate it in a way that it is install media I can insert into my machine in 10 minutes or less. I am able to successfully run the installer on my first attempt and progress through the questions it asks me in 5 minutes or less. I expect to have a running system in 15 minutes or less. I expect it to boot without errors or crashes on the first attempt, and I expect to be in a running browser in less than 3 minutes from a fresh boot. Okay, fire away! /me ducks and covers. ~m From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 00:35:49 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:35:49 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 11:14:51PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 07:27:34PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >I think it's a good idea for this discussion to concentrate not on how > >we aren't meeting this goal at present, but rather on where we want to > >be in the future. Here is the kind of lowest common denominator user > >for whom I would like Fedora to be the first choice of an operating > >system in the next two years. > > > >In terms of characteristics or approach, this person: > > > >* ...is switching from $OTHER_OS to free software after hearing or > > reading about it, or seeing it first hand. > >* ...expects things to "just work" as much as possible, and can > > sometimes be impatient as a result. > > I think it's important to note that even our current developers can and do > have that characteristic. People generally want things to work, regardless > of how much experience they have. > > >* ...doesn't want to go back to $OTHER_OS, and is therefore willing to > > fiddle occasionally -- on the order of 10-15 minutes or less per > > month -- to avoid it. > >* ...accepts that software freedom has certain limitations, but wants > > to minimize (and if possible eliminate) any difference in > > capabilities vs. $OTHER_OS. > >* ...won't pay for software. > >* ...will contribute in the form of a bug report or helping others, if > > it's easy to do so with a few mouse clicks, but won't fill out long > > Web forms or do more than a sentence or so of typing. > > This seems to conflict with the 'less than 10-15' minutes or less per > month goal you have above. Good bug reports (ideally abrt assisted) will > still take at least 10 min to file. Actual useful bug particpation is much > more than that. We could adjust this figure somewhat and it wouldn't radically change the user profile, I think. Maybe "10-15 hours" would, but not "30 minutes-2 hours." It's a gradual difference. > >* ...is interested in sustainable practices in general, but is not > > necessarily fanatic -- recycles packaging and goods, thinks "buying > > local" is worthwhile, volunteers at something a few times a year. > > Why is that important to the Fedora project or distro? That characteristic of the user might not be of interest to the Fedora Project. But one of the point of the user profile is to understand that user's interests and how the Fedora Project and the Fedora distribution are relevant to *them*. (And in fact understand the user in general.) [...snip...] > I won't disagree that extending pariticpation as a side effect is > something we can and possibly should do. However, I do not feel that it > is something we need to make a _primary_ focus. > > Why? Mostly because while I understand the article's points about > increasing paticipation, I want that participation to be a concious choice > on the users part. I want our contributors to WANT to contribute. I want > them to be annoyed at something and motivated enough to do something about > it. Or to have them have a great direction they want to take Fedora in and > care enough to actually try and see it through. Annoying users into doing something is not a recipe for success. Think about the people you've heard get involved in any kind of volunteer endeavor. Is it common for them to say, "I thought this project sucked, so I got involved to improve it"? In my experience, not at all -- it's almost invariably, "I was excited/turned on/inspired by this project and wanted to be a part of it." Hopefully this ties in with what I said earlier about the user profile. > We have long said that 'Fedora is a meritocracy', and I still think that is > something we want to strive for. Meritocracy++. Hopefully, we will continue to have a large non-vocal user base. But I can tell you with certainty that we are not reaching the people *idn* our primary contributor audience as effectively as we could. I've watched repeatedly as people have taken the time to talk to me and other people about Fedora at community events, and quite often they remark, "Wow, Fedora's not at all what I thought." That means we're not doing a good job extending participation to people who already (1) have a cursory familiarity with Fedora, and (2) are interested enough in free software to come to a community event. Narrowing our focus isn't going to help that process. > >I've heard a bit of preliminary rumbling about DSCM-like Rawhides -- a > >way for developers to have trees that move at their pace, and are > >possibly quite broken from time to time in ways that differ from each > >other. If we were able to develop such a scenario, why not also > >provide the flipside of this idea -- make the One True Rawhide the > >place where we take in changes that don't break the world, while > >they're cobbled on in the other trees? Whether this is an extension > >of the "KoPeR" idea or something entirely difficult, it merits serious > >consideration. > > I very much like the aspect of the more stable rawhide here. Jesse Keating brought up some concerns about integration, but aren't those concerns something that people would be interested in solving? (I'm assuming those people are the wide variety of engineers working in the Fedora community who are smarter than I.) > >> (c) Set some broad goals for where we want the Fedora Project to > >> look like a few release from now--say when Fedora 15 is released. > >> What should those be? > > > >By Fedora 16 (i.e. two years out): > > > >* Complete package maintenance interface in one site (i.e. less or no > > shuttling between SCM, Koji, and Bodhi). > > Perhaps s/site/site and tool? I know that as a developer, if I had to go > to a website for everything I did in order to contribute I wouldn't be overly > thrilled. > > (Also, it's worth pointing out that openSUSE already accomplishes this with > their build service. It is build, SCM, etc all rolled into one. And they > have a command line tool.) s/site/site and tool/g :-) > >* Using the Fedora Community Portal to connect new FAS members > > immediately with short-term tasks, and live mentors through a > > Web-based communication interface. Devote several FADs and FUDCon > > hackfests to coding the pieces needed as part of a planned project. > > Again with the Web-based focus. Wouldn't this be potentially alienating > and annoying to a not small subset of the 1% of our development community > that is making the distro today? Note the focus there -- connecting new FAS members with people who want to spend time getting those people acquainted with the community and simple tasks. This goal is specifically enabled by the Moksha framework. I would expect that anyone potentially alienated by a Web based application wouldn't be the first person to take up the task of greeting and teaching new FAS members. -- 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 bruno at wolff.to Thu Oct 22 01:01:04 2009 From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:01:04 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> References: <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20091022010104.GB26128@wolff.to> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 20:19:20 -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > 2) Fedora is a desktop distribution. > > Specifically focusing on #2, I would like to suggest that the target > user for Fedora the desktop distribution is a person of RHCT or > equivalent technical skill who would like to check their webmail in a > browser. I'd suggest leaving out the check webmail part. I have no desire to access any email through a web browser. I don't think how someone checks their email is tied to the definition you give below. > Points: > > - What is meant by 'RHCT or equivalent' is that this is a person who > does not need to have 'using a mouse,' 'drag and drop', 'browser tabs', > and 'right click menus' explained to them. He/she gets it. This is a > person who feels comfortable installing their computer on their own, > burning DVDs, and if pointed to instructions, is comfortable opening up > a terminal and running commands or installing non-packaged software as > instructed (to work around issues, e.g., adding extra yum repos or > installing non-free video card drivers from a tarball if provided some > direction.) > > - What is not meant by RHCT or equivalent: the person does not > necessarily have to be a Fedora user. He or she could have the > equivalent level of comfort with Windows or OS X never having touched a > Linux distro, or Fedora specifically. If this person is a Windows user, > they're a power user and maybe comfortable with installing some of the > tweak UI bits for that, or in OS X are comfortable working in the > terminal or have ports configured. > > So the story I would like to design to, from the Fedora website to > running the desktop is: > > I am a person who is comfortable with computers. I hear about Fedora. I > go to the Fedora website. The Fedora website appeals to me and convinces > me that it's something worth trying. I find a download of Fedora that > will work for me quickly and without stress. I am able to download that > file and manipulate it in a way that it is install media I can insert > into my machine in 10 minutes or less. I am able to successfully run the > installer on my first attempt and progress through the questions it asks > me in 5 minutes or less. I expect to have a running system in 15 minutes > or less. I expect it to boot without errors or crashes on the first > attempt, and I expect to be in a running browser in less than 3 minutes > from a fresh boot. You may need to warn such a user away from some of the spins. The games spin isn't going to install on a lot of machines in 15 minutes. How does this mesh with our no patented codecs stance? Are we going to give people a prominent heads up about why that is and how to mitigate that situation? From duffy at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 22 01:00:19 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:00:19 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022010104.GB26128@wolff.to> References: <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> <20091022010104.GB26128@wolff.to> Message-ID: <4ADFAEA3.4040407@fedoraproject.org> On 10/21/2009 09:01 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 20:19:20 -0400, > M?ir?n Duffy wrote: >> >> 2) Fedora is a desktop distribution. >> >> Specifically focusing on #2, I would like to suggest that the target >> user for Fedora the desktop distribution is a person of RHCT or >> equivalent technical skill who would like to check their webmail in a >> browser. > > I'd suggest leaving out the check webmail part. I have no desire to access > any email through a web browser. I don't think how someone checks their > email is tied to the definition you give below. s/webmail/$SOME_WEBAPP >> I am a person who is comfortable with computers. I hear about Fedora. I >> go to the Fedora website. The Fedora website appeals to me and convinces >> me that it's something worth trying. I find a download of Fedora that >> will work for me quickly and without stress. I am able to download that >> file and manipulate it in a way that it is install media I can insert >> into my machine in 10 minutes or less. I am able to successfully run the >> installer on my first attempt and progress through the questions it asks >> me in 5 minutes or less. I expect to have a running system in 15 minutes >> or less. I expect it to boot without errors or crashes on the first >> attempt, and I expect to be in a running browser in less than 3 minutes >> from a fresh boot. > > You may need to warn such a user away from some of the spins. The games > spin isn't going to install on a lot of machines in 15 minutes. How long does it take? > How does this mesh with our no patented codecs stance? Are we going to give > people a prominent heads up about why that is and how to mitigate that > situation? If they are going to use the web browser for most tasks, mp3 codecs don't matter as much as flash. That is an issue. Flash is an issue no matter what user we choose, though, so I don't think it validates or invalidates the target user proposal here. ~m From bruno at wolff.to Thu Oct 22 01:17:26 2009 From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:17:26 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ADFAEA3.4040407@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> <20091022010104.GB26128@wolff.to> <4ADFAEA3.4040407@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20091022011726.GC26128@wolff.to> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 21:00:19 -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > > How long does it take? I haven't done exactly that (usually for fresh installs I install more than is on the games spin), but I think it is multiple hours. These are machines with PATA disks and not lots of memory. So besides slow disk tranfers, there is a lot of paging of memory. The games spin is almost 4GiB, so just copying it off a DVD or USB stick would take more than 15 minutes. > > How does this mesh with our no patented codecs stance? Are we going to give > > people a prominent heads up about why that is and how to mitigate that > > situation? > > If they are going to use the web browser for most tasks, mp3 codecs > don't matter as much as flash. That is an issue. Flash is an issue no > matter what user we choose, though, so I don't think it validates or > invalidates the target user proposal here. But we don't have a policy against flash though. I remember seeing that some codecs usuable by flash stuff aren't included because of patents, but I thought the most common codecs seen were supported. If we are going to complain about broken stuff that in theory we can fix, please add good 3D graphics support for Intel, AIT and nVidia chips. ATI is at least another release away from being good. The Nouveau driver is more than one release away from being good. The codec stuff is different in that we can't really fix it. We can just make it easier to get them from someplace else and explain why we do that. From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 22 01:58:08 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:58:08 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 20:35 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > >I've heard a bit of preliminary rumbling about DSCM-like Rawhides -- a > > >way for developers to have trees that move at their pace, and are > > >possibly quite broken from time to time in ways that differ from each > > >other. If we were able to develop such a scenario, why not also > > >provide the flipside of this idea -- make the One True Rawhide the > > >place where we take in changes that don't break the world, while > > >they're cobbled on in the other trees? Whether this is an extension > > >of the "KoPeR" idea or something entirely difficult, it merits serious > > >consideration. > > > > I very much like the aspect of the more stable rawhide here. > > Jesse Keating brought up some concerns about integration, but aren't > those concerns something that people would be interested in solving? > (I'm assuming those people are the wide variety of engineers working > in the Fedora community who are smarter than I.) > > So my plans are really funny. I plan to make rawhide more unstable more of the time, and I plan to make "rawhide" more stable more of the time. Crazy eh? How can I do this? By splitting "rawhide" in two. Rawhide as we know it, /pub/fedora/linux/releases/development/ will remain "rawhide". We may even change the path to say rawhide, just to catch things up and well I like keeping mirrors on their toes. Rawhide will be a repository of developmental and experimental packages. Things being worked on for the future. It will /not/ be an installable tree, rather it will just be a repository of packages, to be added on to an already stable "base", eg you'd install F12, and enable rawhide to test rawhide. This will significantly lower the complaints that "rawhide isn't installable". The second face of rawhide, will be the "pending release", that is when it comes time to feature freeze a release, we'll split it away from rawhide. We'll publish to /pub/fedora/linux/releases/test/13-pending/ or some such. THIS tree will be installable. It will be composed each night, and we'll use bodhi to manage updates to this tree. That means this tree will have it's own "updates testing" where potential freeze breaks can be tested and commented on by all, but won't risk the base tree. If testing pans out, it'll get tagged for the release, if not it'll get thrown away. This tree will spawn 13-Alpha, 13-Beta, the snapshots in between, and eventually pub/fedora/linux/releases/13. Remember that first rawhide? Yeah, it kept going, unfrozen, leaping toward Fedora 14. You could still install 13-Alpha, or 13-pending, and enable/update to rawhide to start testing Fedora 14 stuff. What does this accomplish? It provides a very easy release valve. Instead of closing the valve and building up pressure while we freeze, and tempting people to push things into our pending release that really don't belong, we'll provide them a normal, never ending release of pressure, called rawhide. You can always find the latest stuff in rawhide, there is nothing newer (unless we make KoPeRs happen). We don't have to worry about "rawhide" being installable. We don't have to worry about people dumping highly experimental or developmental stuff in our pending release. We don't have to worry about the giant pile of builds for the next release building up while we polish the pending release. We don't have to worry about the giant pile of 0-day updates building up while we polish the pending release, as we'll be pushing these updates as we go. This is my vision on how to accomplish both a always active development stream, and a more stable pending release stream, keeping everybody happy. Want to help? I'll be at FUDCon Toronto discussing roadblocks to this vision and discussing why this vision sucks if anybody thinks that it does. Or just find me on IRC/email if you want to chat about it. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dev at nigelj.com Thu Oct 22 02:03:48 2009 From: dev at nigelj.com (Nigel Jones) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:03:48 +1000 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <69fe28d70910211903k29cd4b82qb22c2a7a984f336a@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 20:35 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> > >I've heard a bit of preliminary rumbling about DSCM-like Rawhides -- a >> > >way for developers to have trees that move at their pace, and are >> > >possibly quite broken from time to time in ways that differ from each >> > >other. ?If we were able to develop such a scenario, why not also >> > >provide the flipside of this idea -- make the One True Rawhide the >> > >place where we take in changes that don't break the world, while >> > >they're cobbled on in the other trees? ?Whether this is an extension >> > >of the "KoPeR" idea or something entirely difficult, it merits serious >> > >consideration. >> > >> > I very much like the aspect of the more stable rawhide here. >> >> Jesse Keating brought up some concerns about integration, but aren't >> those concerns something that people would be interested in solving? >> (I'm assuming those people are the wide variety of engineers working >> in the Fedora community who are smarter than I.) >> >> > > So my plans are really funny. ?I plan to make rawhide more unstable more > of the time, and I plan to make "rawhide" more stable more of the time. > Crazy eh? ?How can I do this? ?By splitting "rawhide" in two. > > Rawhide as we know it, /pub/fedora/linux/releases/development/ will > remain "rawhide". ?We may even change the path to say rawhide, just to > catch things up and well I like keeping mirrors on their toes. ?Rawhide > will be a repository of developmental and experimental packages. ?Things > being worked on for the future. ?It will /not/ be an installable tree, > rather it will just be a repository of packages, to be added on to an > already stable "base", eg you'd install F12, and enable rawhide to test > rawhide. ?This will significantly lower the complaints that "rawhide > isn't installable". > So basically you are suggenting that rawhide = experimental, and that we ad a testing repo which is pre-release. This is great, but it's what people have been asking for ages, so lets get it implemented! From bruno at wolff.to Thu Oct 22 02:58:29 2009 From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:58:29 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091022025829.GA12199@wolff.to> I think think your proposal is the way we should be doing things. I think we should get a lot more testers of the upcoming release with a model like this. On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 18:58:08 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > Rawhide as we know it, /pub/fedora/linux/releases/development/ will > remain "rawhide". We may even change the path to say rawhide, just to > catch things up and well I like keeping mirrors on their toes. Rawhide > will be a repository of developmental and experimental packages. Things > being worked on for the future. It will /not/ be an installable tree, > rather it will just be a repository of packages, to be added on to an > already stable "base", eg you'd install F12, and enable rawhide to test > rawhide. This will significantly lower the complaints that "rawhide > isn't installable". It would be nice to have a yum plugin were you install a specified package (or packages) from rawhide and only pull in the absolute minimum number of packages to satisfy dependencies from rawhide. As much as is allowed, dependencies should be pulled from the base repo. If I update one package from rawhide, I don't want to update all of it's dependencies to rawhide, only those that absoultely have to be (based on minumum versions in requires). From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 03:08:55 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:08:55 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022025829.GA12199@wolff.to> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091022025829.GA12199@wolff.to> Message-ID: <20091022030855.GN933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:58:29PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > I think think your proposal is the way we should be doing things. I think > we should get a lot more testers of the upcoming release with a model > like this. > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 18:58:08 -0700, > Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > Rawhide as we know it, /pub/fedora/linux/releases/development/ will > > remain "rawhide". We may even change the path to say rawhide, just to > > catch things up and well I like keeping mirrors on their toes. Rawhide > > will be a repository of developmental and experimental packages. Things > > being worked on for the future. It will /not/ be an installable tree, > > rather it will just be a repository of packages, to be added on to an > > already stable "base", eg you'd install F12, and enable rawhide to test > > rawhide. This will significantly lower the complaints that "rawhide > > isn't installable". > > It would be nice to have a yum plugin were you install a specified package (or > packages) from rawhide and only pull in the absolute minimum number of packages > to satisfy dependencies from rawhide. As much as is allowed, dependencies > should be pulled from the base repo. If I update one package from rawhide, > I don't want to update all of it's dependencies to rawhide, only those that > absoultely have to be (based on minumum versions in requires). Isn't that what RPM deps already 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 Thu Oct 22 03:16:20 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:16:20 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091022031620.GO933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 06:58:08PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 20:35 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > >I've heard a bit of preliminary rumbling about DSCM-like Rawhides -- a > > > >way for developers to have trees that move at their pace, and are > > > >possibly quite broken from time to time in ways that differ from each > > > >other. If we were able to develop such a scenario, why not also > > > >provide the flipside of this idea -- make the One True Rawhide the > > > >place where we take in changes that don't break the world, while > > > >they're cobbled on in the other trees? Whether this is an extension > > > >of the "KoPeR" idea or something entirely difficult, it merits serious > > > >consideration. > > > > > > I very much like the aspect of the more stable rawhide here. > > > > Jesse Keating brought up some concerns about integration, but aren't > > those concerns something that people would be interested in solving? > > (I'm assuming those people are the wide variety of engineers working > > in the Fedora community who are smarter than I.) > > > > > > So my plans are really funny. I plan to make rawhide more unstable more > of the time, and I plan to make "rawhide" more stable more of the time. > Crazy eh? How can I do this? By splitting "rawhide" in two. > > Rawhide as we know it, /pub/fedora/linux/releases/development/ will > remain "rawhide". We may even change the path to say rawhide, just to > catch things up and well I like keeping mirrors on their toes. Rawhide > will be a repository of developmental and experimental packages. Things > being worked on for the future. It will /not/ be an installable tree, > rather it will just be a repository of packages, to be added on to an > already stable "base", eg you'd install F12, and enable rawhide to test > rawhide. This will significantly lower the complaints that "rawhide > isn't installable". > > The second face of rawhide, will be the "pending release", that is when > it comes time to feature freeze a release, we'll split it away from > rawhide. We'll publish to /pub/fedora/linux/releases/test/13-pending/ > or some such. THIS tree will be installable. It will be composed each > night, and we'll use bodhi to manage updates to this tree. That means > this tree will have it's own "updates testing" where potential freeze > breaks can be tested and commented on by all, but won't risk the base > tree. If testing pans out, it'll get tagged for the release, if not > it'll get thrown away. This tree will spawn 13-Alpha, 13-Beta, the > snapshots in between, and eventually pub/fedora/linux/releases/13. > > Remember that first rawhide? Yeah, it kept going, unfrozen, leaping > toward Fedora 14. You could still install 13-Alpha, or 13-pending, and > enable/update to rawhide to start testing Fedora 14 stuff. > > What does this accomplish? It provides a very easy release valve. > Instead of closing the valve and building up pressure while we freeze, > and tempting people to push things into our pending release that really > don't belong, we'll provide them a normal, never ending release of > pressure, called rawhide. You can always find the latest stuff in > rawhide, there is nothing newer (unless we make KoPeRs happen). We > don't have to worry about "rawhide" being installable. We don't have to > worry about people dumping highly experimental or developmental stuff in > our pending release. We don't have to worry about the giant pile of > builds for the next release building up while we polish the pending > release. We don't have to worry about the giant pile of 0-day updates > building up while we polish the pending release, as we'll be pushing > these updates as we go. > > This is my vision on how to accomplish both a always active development > stream, and a more stable pending release stream, keeping everybody > happy. Want to help? I'll be at FUDCon Toronto discussing roadblocks > to this vision and discussing why this vision sucks if anybody thinks > that it does. Or just find me on IRC/email if you want to chat about > it. This sounds pretty interesting to me. I think I even understand it. You're hopefully hitting two really important targets here -- making the stuff for the N+1 release always more installable, minus some delta for some broken deps, which of course we can continue to make less frequent; and not slowing down the ability for developers to submit and build brand new stuff. Since this is essentially No Frozen Rawhide v2.0, are you planning to update that wiki page with this new proposal? -- 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 bruno at wolff.to Thu Oct 22 03:37:25 2009 From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:37:25 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022030855.GN933@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091022025829.GA12199@wolff.to> <20091022030855.GN933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091022033725.GA3547@wolff.to> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 23:08:55 -0400, "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > > Isn't that what RPM deps already do? I'll test it out. I thought that dependencies got updated, but it might be that I was just seeing cases where the minimums were upped. I'll test it out and see how it really works. Usually the only time where I am trying to update only some stuff is when doing yum upgrades and working around issues by trying to update only some stuff. But that is the case where minimums for packages in the new release are likely to require dependencies from the new release. From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 03:52:03 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:52:03 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:13:29PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > This is why I feel so strongly that we should not be assuming that the > > people we see every day in our roles in the Fedora community, > > participating and contributing in constructive ways, are de facto > > representative of our only target audience. Do we want those people > > involved? Almost invariably the answer is "yes." But there are many > > more people we reach, and more that we want to be reaching, to > > encourage an appreciation for sustainable software freedom, on the > > terms we set out in our mission and core values: > > > > Can you give some more detailed examples here? You've defined the people > we see day to day but then went on to describe the people we don't see day > to day. Those two groups combined are everyone :) Dangling reply never went out: People we see daily: Packagers, admins, and developers. People we don't, in decreasing levels of visibility: Ambassadors, bug filers, potential bug filers, independent open source developers, students -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 03:55:48 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:55:48 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022033725.GA3547@wolff.to> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091022025829.GA12199@wolff.to> <20091022030855.GN933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022033725.GA3547@wolff.to> Message-ID: <20091022035548.GR933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:37:25PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 23:08:55 -0400, > "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > > > > Isn't that what RPM deps already do? > > I'll test it out. I thought that dependencies got updated, but it might be > that I was just seeing cases where the minimums were upped. I'll test it > out and see how it really works. Usually the only time where I am trying > to update only some stuff is when doing yum upgrades and working around > issues by trying to update only some stuff. But that is the case where > minimums for packages in the new release are likely to require dependencies > from the new release. I think the cardinal rule we'd document for people updating is, "Run 'yum update foo' to get the latest foo, and be prepared to get a lot of other stuff in some cases. Don't fight it, fighting makes it worse." ;-) -- 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 mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 22 04:05:44 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:05:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:13:29PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > This is why I feel so strongly that we should not be assuming that the > > > people we see every day in our roles in the Fedora community, > > > participating and contributing in constructive ways, are de facto > > > representative of our only target audience. Do we want those people > > > involved? Almost invariably the answer is "yes." But there are many > > > more people we reach, and more that we want to be reaching, to > > > encourage an appreciation for sustainable software freedom, on the > > > terms we set out in our mission and core values: > > > > > > > Can you give some more detailed examples here? You've defined the people > > we see day to day but then went on to describe the people we don't see day > > to day. Those two groups combined are everyone :) > > Dangling reply never went out: > > People we see daily: Packagers, admins, and developers. > People we don't, in decreasing levels of visibility: Ambassadors, bug > filers, potential bug filers, independent open source developers, > students > Also windows users, oracle employees, those without computers. I guess I'm just not following the logic. If you're saying we should cater to those we don't ever see, how? -Mike From bruno at wolff.to Thu Oct 22 04:20:24 2009 From: bruno at wolff.to (Bruno Wolff III) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:20:24 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022035548.GR933@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091022025829.GA12199@wolff.to> <20091022030855.GN933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022033725.GA3547@wolff.to> <20091022035548.GR933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091022042024.GA18795@wolff.to> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 23:55:48 -0400, "Paul W. Frields" wrote: > > I think the cardinal rule we'd document for people updating is, "Run > 'yum update foo' to get the latest foo, and be prepared to get a lot > of other stuff in some cases. Don't fight it, fighting makes it > worse." ;-) I tested this and confirmed what you said. So no worries about grabbing something from rawhide as long as you don't use -y, so you can change your mind if lots of stuff gets pulled in. I usually don't try to fight things, but when doing yum upgrades with the kitchen sink installed you can get broken deps that yum can't resolve and then you need to try to work around it. yum does make it easier to find the root problem packages and yum-shell gives you some nicer options for fixing things that I haven't taken full advantage of in the past. I really do like the proposal though. It seems to provide some of the needs that per app branches were proposed for and provides a stabler development system than previous rawhides were. Plus by having updates and updates-testing for the prerelease branch, even if you follow updates-testing, if something bad happens it will be easy to use yum downgrade in most cases to get an earlier version that works. You don't need to paw through koji to find a stable version. (And for things that have a lot of related packages, you don't need to do a bunch of one off downloads.) If this happens I'd stay on the latest prerelease track constantly with my personal machines. It varies between machines, but I currently only run rawhide for about half of a development cycle. From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 04:42:49 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:42:49 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:05:44PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:13:29PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > > This is why I feel so strongly that we should not be assuming that the > > > > people we see every day in our roles in the Fedora community, > > > > participating and contributing in constructive ways, are de facto > > > > representative of our only target audience. Do we want those people > > > > involved? Almost invariably the answer is "yes." But there are many > > > > more people we reach, and more that we want to be reaching, to > > > > encourage an appreciation for sustainable software freedom, on the > > > > terms we set out in our mission and core values: > > > > > > > > > > Can you give some more detailed examples here? You've defined the people > > > we see day to day but then went on to describe the people we don't see day > > > to day. Those two groups combined are everyone :) > > > > Dangling reply never went out: > > > > People we see daily: Packagers, admins, and developers. > > People we don't, in decreasing levels of visibility: Ambassadors, bug > > filers, potential bug filers, independent open source developers, > > students > > > > Also windows users, oracle employees, those without computers. I guess > I'm just not following the logic. If you're saying we should cater to > those we don't ever see, how? If you're committed to reductio ad absurdum, this discussion can't get anywhere meaningful. I specifically indicated we want to reach people on the terms we set out in our mission and core values (see above). The people you and I are in direct contact with every day in our Fedora $DAYJOB represent a much smaller set of people than the people who use the Fedora distribution and are interested in what the Fedora Project does. Set A is a very small subset of Set B, not a disjoint set. By ensuring that Fedora gets better and is more appealing for Set B, we can not only generally make Set A's life better but we can also grow Set B, and if the size of Set A is governed by some proportion (albeit small), Set A is likely to grow as well. Calling this "catering" comes off as exclusionary to me, and I think that's unhealthy for the Fedora Project in the long run. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 22 04:50:18 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:50:18 -0700 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022031620.GO933@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091022031620.GO933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <1256187018.4242.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 23:16 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > This sounds pretty interesting to me. I think I even understand it. > > You're hopefully hitting two really important targets here -- making > the stuff for the N+1 release always more installable, minus some > delta for some broken deps, which of course we can continue to make > less frequent; and not slowing down the ability for developers to > submit and build brand new stuff. > > Since this is essentially No Frozen Rawhide v2.0, are you planning to > update that wiki page with this new proposal? I didn't really think this was any different than no frozen rawhide. I may have worded it differently, but the basic concept at least in my head has been the same all along. I've just gotten better at explaining it. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 05:14:31 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:14:31 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <1256187018.4242.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091008031451.GD30884@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> <20091022003549.GK933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256176688.4242.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20091022031620.GO933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <1256187018.4242.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091022051431.GW933@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:50:18PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 23:16 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > This sounds pretty interesting to me. I think I even understand it. > > > > You're hopefully hitting two really important targets here -- making > > the stuff for the N+1 release always more installable, minus some > > delta for some broken deps, which of course we can continue to make > > less frequent; and not slowing down the ability for developers to > > submit and build brand new stuff. > > > > Since this is essentially No Frozen Rawhide v2.0, are you planning to > > update that wiki page with this new proposal? > > I didn't really think this was any different than no frozen rawhide. I > may have worded it differently, but the basic concept at least in my > head has been the same all along. I've just gotten better at explaining > it. What I left the FAD in RDU thinking was that you were essentially starting up a branch for N+2 earlier, around feature freeze. Maybe I completely misunderstood. The explanation here was much clearer if so. -- 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 walters at verbum.org Thu Oct 22 13:36:10 2009 From: walters at verbum.org (Colin Walters) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:36:10 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: 2009/10/21 M?ir?n Duffy : > 1) Fedora is a community that builds software, a set of projects on > fedorahosted.org, a set of spins on spins.fedoraproject.org - it's > basically a development platform for creating free & open source > software and applying free & open source software towards solving > specific problems. Sounds good. But next, we mention just one specific problem: > 2) Fedora is a desktop distribution. I really don't like elevating the desktop to this level. Fedora is an *operating system*, which the desktop is built on. In short maybe, "Fedora has a desktop", not "is". I've said before that we need to be producing a server spin. Why? Because if we want to be a community where you help develop the future of the Linux operating system, we can't omit the server (and other more specialized areas). What if say you're an IBM employee who wants to optimize power consumption on PowerPC. You take a look at everything from the kernel up to typical server apps (Samba, whatever). You likely want to first do this work on the *latest* versions of all of this software, from the kernel on up. It's crazy to tell people to start hacking from say the CentOS source RPMS, because a) hacking from source RPMS really, really sucks and b) what if some of your optimizations are already in the latest upstream kernel/glibc/samba etc.? After you've done the work there, then maybe you look at backporting it into a release stream. Another example; say you're Richard Jones from the Red Hat virt team, and you really want to reduce the disk space consumed by the minimal image install ( http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/why-minimal-is-225-mb/ ). How do you prevent someone from coming along later and adding some really large dependency to the minimal set? You do it upstream. In Fedora. I don't mean that on the get-fedora page, we start listing "minimal Amazon EC2 image" or whatever right next to the desktop. But we should be producing images for servers, we should be doing some kind of tests on them (disk space as above, etc.), and they should be linked somehow from the get-fedora page. This doesn't mean that we expect a lot of people to necessarily run those specific images, and maybe Fedora should make its relationship with some of its more prominent derived operating systems clear here, and at least mention them. But we should also be clear that we expect people to do development with us, and join the larger FOSS community (including the server) through us. From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 22 13:37:55 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:37:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:05:44PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:13:29PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > > > This is why I feel so strongly that we should not be assuming that the > > > > > people we see every day in our roles in the Fedora community, > > > > > participating and contributing in constructive ways, are de facto > > > > > representative of our only target audience. Do we want those people > > > > > involved? Almost invariably the answer is "yes." But there are many > > > > > more people we reach, and more that we want to be reaching, to > > > > > encourage an appreciation for sustainable software freedom, on the > > > > > terms we set out in our mission and core values: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you give some more detailed examples here? You've defined the people > > > > we see day to day but then went on to describe the people we don't see day > > > > to day. Those two groups combined are everyone :) > > > > > > Dangling reply never went out: > > > > > > People we see daily: Packagers, admins, and developers. > > > People we don't, in decreasing levels of visibility: Ambassadors, bug > > > filers, potential bug filers, independent open source developers, > > > students > > > > > > > Also windows users, oracle employees, those without computers. I guess > > I'm just not following the logic. If you're saying we should cater to > > those we don't ever see, how? > > If you're committed to reductio ad absurdum, this discussion can't get > anywhere meaningful. I specifically indicated we want to reach people > on the terms we set out in our mission and core values (see above). > I bring it up because I still honestly don't know your stance on this and being the project lead it's pretty important to this discussion. Are we excluding people or are we including everyone? > The people you and I are in direct contact with every day in our > Fedora $DAYJOB represent a much smaller set of people than the people > who use the Fedora distribution and are interested in what the Fedora > Project does. Set A is a very small subset of Set B, not a disjoint > set. By ensuring that Fedora gets better and is more appealing for > Set B, we can not only generally make Set A's life better but we can > also grow Set B, and if the size of Set A is governed by some > proportion (albeit small), Set A is likely to grow as well. > > Calling this "catering" comes off as exclusionary to me, and I think > that's unhealthy for the Fedora Project in the long run. > I'm just going to bring up the elephant in the room, at least the one I see. Up until this discussion I was under the impression that Ubuntu and us were not in direct competition. They were catering to noobs and general users, we were catering to enthusiasts and experienced users. Coming out of this conversation (not just with Paul but with everyone) it seems clear that Ubuntu's goals and our goals greatly overlap if not completely overlap. The problem? They are KILLING us. I'm not talking about market share, I'm talking about my recent converts from Fedora to Ubuntu. I haven't had to do a single thing to my wifes computer since I put Ubuntu on there except setup my printer. With Fedora I was on it almost daily. -Mike From duffy at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 22 13:35:52 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhaXLDrW4gRHVmZnk=?=) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:35:52 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4AE05FB8.8080405@fedoraproject.org> Hi Colin! On 10/22/2009 09:36 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > 2009/10/21 M?ir?n Duffy : > >> 1) Fedora is a community that builds software, a set of projects on >> fedorahosted.org, a set of spins on spins.fedoraproject.org - it's >> basically a development platform for creating free & open source >> software and applying free & open source software towards solving >> specific problems. > > Sounds good. But next, we mention just one specific problem: > >> 2) Fedora is a desktop distribution. > > I really don't like elevating the desktop to this level. Fedora is an > *operating system*, which the desktop is built on. In short maybe, > "Fedora has a desktop", not "is". ... > I don't mean that on the get-fedora page, we start listing "minimal > Amazon EC2 image" or whatever right next to the desktop. But we > should be producing images for servers, we should be doing some kind > of tests on them (disk space as above, etc.), and they should be > linked somehow from the get-fedora page. > > This doesn't mean that we expect a lot of people to necessarily run > those specific images, and maybe Fedora should make its relationship > with some of its more prominent derived operating systems clear here, > and at least mention them. But we should also be clear that we expect > people to do development with us, and join the larger FOSS community > (including the server) through us. That's why I proposed that there be two Fedoras, though. The folks you of your concern would join through #1. Maybe it would be at fedoraproject.org, and the desktop would be at getfedora.org or fedoradesktop.org. We don't have to be a one-trick pony do we? ~m From duffy at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 22 13:57:36 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:57:36 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4AE064D0.4040201@fedoraproject.org> On 10/22/2009 09:37 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > I'm just going to bring up the elephant in the room, at least the one I > see. Up until this discussion I was under the impression that Ubuntu and > us were not in direct competition. They were catering to noobs and > general users, we were catering to enthusiasts and experienced users. > Coming out of this conversation (not just with Paul but with everyone) it > seems clear that Ubuntu's goals and our goals greatly overlap if not > completely overlap. I don't think our goals do overlap though. To us, following an excellent, open process of producing software is just as important as producing excellent, open source software. One of our goals is to be a model and an example of that process, and to prove it works so it may be taken up by other domains. I don't think they care about that at all. To us, the means are not justified by the ends - they are just as important. I think to Ubuntu, the ends justify the means. > The problem? They are KILLING us. I'm not talking about market share, > I'm talking about my recent converts from Fedora to Ubuntu. I haven't had > to do a single thing to my wifes computer since I put Ubuntu on there > except setup my printer. With Fedora I was on it almost daily. Did yum updates cause the breakage? ~m From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Oct 22 14:11:36 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:11:36 -0500 (CDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AE064D0.4040201@fedoraproject.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE064D0.4040201@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/22/2009 09:37 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > > I'm just going to bring up the elephant in the room, at least the one I > > see. Up until this discussion I was under the impression that Ubuntu and > > us were not in direct competition. They were catering to noobs and > > general users, we were catering to enthusiasts and experienced users. > > Coming out of this conversation (not just with Paul but with everyone) it > > seems clear that Ubuntu's goals and our goals greatly overlap if not > > completely overlap. > > I don't think our goals do overlap though. To us, following an > excellent, open process of producing software is just as important as > producing excellent, open source software. One of our goals is to be a > model and an example of that process, and to prove it works so it may be > taken up by other domains. > > I don't think they care about that at all. > > To us, the means are not justified by the ends - they are just as > important. I think to Ubuntu, the ends justify the means. > 1) New stuff breaks more often (-1 Fedora) 2) Proprietary drivers, flash, java, etc work better then their free software alternatives... for now. (+1 Ubuntu) We're paving the way for all free software making all of 2) better in free software, but we can't keep doing that without realizing the sacrifice we're making especially in terms of usability. > > The problem? They are KILLING us. I'm not talking about market share, > > I'm talking about my recent converts from Fedora to Ubuntu. I haven't had > > to do a single thing to my wifes computer since I put Ubuntu on there > > except setup my printer. With Fedora I was on it almost daily. > > Did yum updates cause the breakage? > It was such a calamity of errors I don't even feel like writing about it. I *HATE* Ubuntu. So for me and her to get so frustrated for me to even try Ubuntu gives you an idea of how poor her experience was with Fedora. We're talking about everything from mouse failures, sound failures, videos freezing after 15 seconds, complete lockups, etc, etc. I opened up some bugs for some of them but only have so many hours in my day and full time desktop support for my wife just isn't on that list. Imagine how depressing it's been to realize how much of a better solution Ubuntu has been for her. -Mike From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 14:17:45 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:17:45 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091022141745.GD7368@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 08:37:55AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:05:44PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 08:13:29PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > > > > This is why I feel so strongly that we should not be assuming that the > > > > > > people we see every day in our roles in the Fedora community, > > > > > > participating and contributing in constructive ways, are de facto > > > > > > representative of our only target audience. Do we want those people > > > > > > involved? Almost invariably the answer is "yes." But there are many > > > > > > more people we reach, and more that we want to be reaching, to > > > > > > encourage an appreciation for sustainable software freedom, on the > > > > > > terms we set out in our mission and core values: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you give some more detailed examples here? You've defined the people > > > > > we see day to day but then went on to describe the people we don't see day > > > > > to day. Those two groups combined are everyone :) > > > > > > > > Dangling reply never went out: > > > > > > > > People we see daily: Packagers, admins, and developers. > > > > People we don't, in decreasing levels of visibility: Ambassadors, bug > > > > filers, potential bug filers, independent open source developers, > > > > students > > > > > > > > > > Also windows users, oracle employees, those without computers. I guess > > > I'm just not following the logic. If you're saying we should cater to > > > those we don't ever see, how? > > > > If you're committed to reductio ad absurdum, this discussion can't get > > anywhere meaningful. I specifically indicated we want to reach people > > on the terms we set out in our mission and core values (see above). > > > > I bring it up because I still honestly don't know your stance on this and > being the project lead it's pretty important to this discussion. Are we > excluding people or are we including everyone? I'm sorry I haven't been clear enough, in that case. "Everyone" is too broad and there's no way we can make release, QA, or any other criteria around that definition. Any detail, no matter how small, is going to be important to somebody and for that person, might be a blocker on a release. With that target we would have a hard time ever releasing something. So: We should target computer-literate users who are making a conscious choice to switch to Linux, are willing to help a developer debug a problem if one occurs, and use their system to connect to the Internet and run a general set of productivity and communication tools (connect to network, update system if needed, browse Web, use our help venues including mail and IRC). These users need not be developers, programmers, sysadmins, or tinkerers. By targeting this type of user, and by fixing things we're not doing right for this type of user, we'll also fix a lot of other people's pain, including people in our core contributor audience. I would like to have a much longer and more detailed set of criteria for what this person needs to be able to do from the moment they boot the installation media, but that's a next step. Mairin Duffy sort of started down this road and I think there's a lot we can add to her description of what the user should expect to be able to do. If it helps you gain clarity at all, I think Bill Nottingham and I are in pretty good agreement. If the above isn't clear to you please let me know how and I'll be happy to be more descriptive. > > The people you and I are in direct contact with every day in our > > Fedora $DAYJOB represent a much smaller set of people than the people > > who use the Fedora distribution and are interested in what the Fedora > > Project does. Set A is a very small subset of Set B, not a disjoint > > set. By ensuring that Fedora gets better and is more appealing for > > Set B, we can not only generally make Set A's life better but we can > > also grow Set B, and if the size of Set A is governed by some > > proportion (albeit small), Set A is likely to grow as well. > > > > Calling this "catering" comes off as exclusionary to me, and I think > > that's unhealthy for the Fedora Project in the long run. > > > > I'm just going to bring up the elephant in the room, at least the one I > see. Up until this discussion I was under the impression that Ubuntu and > us were not in direct competition. They were catering to noobs and > general users, we were catering to enthusiasts and experienced users. > Coming out of this conversation (not just with Paul but with everyone) it > seems clear that Ubuntu's goals and our goals greatly overlap if not > completely overlap. > > The problem? They are KILLING us. I'm not talking about market share, > I'm talking about my recent converts from Fedora to Ubuntu. I haven't had > to do a single thing to my wifes computer since I put Ubuntu on there > except setup my printer. With Fedora I was on it almost daily. I think fixing some of the things that are clearly causing some people pain in Fedora is going to have the (not unpleasant) side effect of making Fedora more appealing to people who might otherwise not give us a chance. That's different than going out of our way to target people who don't fit into the description above. One possible future, the one I'd like, is where someone in our target profile says, "I tried Fedora, and it's super-solid, updates never break, I never have to drop to a command line to fix things, and everything just works." We don't need to make "newbie stamp of approval" a priority to make Fedora better. The point is that the Fedora distribution will be better for the people we *do* care about. Will the target audience above influence other people around them? Sure they will. And sure, we'd be happy if that influence was positive about Fedora and not negative. But again, that's not the goal, it's just a side effect of making a better Fedora 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 walters at verbum.org Thu Oct 22 14:48:25 2009 From: walters at verbum.org (Colin Walters) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:48:25 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AE05FB8.8080405@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> <4AE05FB8.8080405@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: 2009/10/22 M?ir?n Duffy : > > The folks you of your concern would join through #1. Maybe it would be > at fedoraproject.org, and the desktop would be at getfedora.org or > fedoradesktop.org. Hmm...well, what I'm more saying here is we need some tangible *thing* (cd image, netboot setup, etc.) produced as an entry point for server/embedded/etc. getfedora.org sounds like it would be the source of *thing* and I don't want that to just be desktop). > We don't have to be a one-trick pony do we? Definitely not! (I personally have in the past used Fedora as a server on Amazon EC2 because it had newer versions of Python, etc. and I could reasonably "self-support", and there are more than a few other people who want the same: http://velohacker.com/fedora-notes/ec2-and-fedora-still-stuck-at-fedora-8/ ) From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 22 14:48:54 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AE05FB8.8080405@fedoraproject.org> References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> <4AE05FB8.8080405@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hi Colin! > > > That's why I proposed that there be two Fedoras, though. > > The folks you of your concern would join through #1. Maybe it would be > at fedoraproject.org, and the desktop would be at getfedora.org or > fedoradesktop.org. > > We don't have to be a one-trick pony do we? What follows here is only my opinion and for my perspective - so please take it with the desired quantity of salt: As you and I talked about on irc yesterday: what if we allowed for a really serious break in those concepts? >From various things I've read and experienced it seems like the desktop sig in fedora would love to produce a linux and freesoftware desktop that is a lot like mac osx. They seem interested in breaking track with a lot of things that fedora - especially as a server-oriented os - uses. This includes the packaging system, package management, dynamic vs static linking of libraries, bundling libraries with apps. It may include good portions of the filesystem hierarchy standard. Now, for people who want continuity with what they are running on rhel/centos and fedora and other unixes - these kind of changes are anathema. And so we have lots of arguing and gnashing of teeth. No fun for ANYONE really. Now, folks who are interested more specifically in servers DO care about the pkg mgmt system, about replicable and configurable deployment, about shared libs, about the FHS and about continuity with the last 30yrs of unix computing. I think if we keep trying to force these two things together we will end up building a sports-truck-wagon-train. Which is to say, a vehicle that is EVERYTHING for EVERYONE but no one wants to drive it. I guess I suggest we break this off. We completely let the fedora desktop team focus on deployment via usbkey/cd and live-install-to-disk and using whatever methods. We should also continue our existing fedora 'server' goals. Finally, we should start to foster a set of webapps offered with fedora that allows us to compete with the apps that google is offering. To me it is becoming more and more clear that the apps on the desktop don't matter b/c the users have many, many desktops of various OSes and type of interface. So we need to be sure that users have the choice of freesoftware apps available on the net as well. B/c, ultimately, the application the user is "using" is not 'firefox' the app is 'email' or 'im' or 'random-social-networking'. Those are the apps that need to be free for the future. Where the users DATA is - not necessarily the tool they use to connect to where their DATA is. This means AGPL licensed apps and systems integrated and ready to deploy them. In my best of all possible worlds - we have a desktop which is works with most systems out of the box and doesn't have an enormous number of applications on it. It just lets the user get to their apps elsewhere, securely. okay, - flames on. -sv From inode0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 14:56:15 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:56:15 -0500 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AE064D0.4040201@fedoraproject.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE064D0.4040201@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: 2009/10/22 M?ir?n Duffy : > On 10/22/2009 09:37 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: >> I'm just going to bring up the elephant in the room, at least the one I >> see. ?Up until this discussion I was under the impression that Ubuntu and >> us were not in direct competition. ?They were catering to noobs and >> general users, we were catering to enthusiasts and experienced users. >> Coming out of this conversation (not just with Paul but with everyone) it >> seems clear that Ubuntu's goals and our goals greatly overlap if not >> completely overlap. I think characterizing Ubuntu as catering to noobs is a gross simplification of their philosophy and mission. They advertise a server distribution on their front page unlike Fedora and I doubt its target audience is a bunch of noobs. They have a large and broad community and a very clear statement of their philosophy that in some important ways I think is stronger and more clear about certain things I care very much about. http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy In practice, I think Fedora's actions speak louder than its words. > I don't think our goals do overlap though. To us, following an > excellent, open process of producing software is just as important as > producing excellent, open source software. One of our goals is to be a > model and an example of that process, and to prove it works so it may be > taken up by other domains. > > I don't think they care about that at all. > > To us, the means are not justified by the ends - they are just as > important. I think to Ubuntu, the ends justify the means. In the far back corners of my brain this rings a bell reminding me of the arguments I listened to between the free software and open source camps when the idea of rebranding free software first began to surface. >> The problem? ?They are KILLING us. ?I'm not talking about market share, >> I'm talking about my recent converts from Fedora to Ubuntu. ?I haven't had >> to do a single thing to my wifes computer since I put Ubuntu on there >> except setup my printer. ?With Fedora I was on it almost daily. > > Did yum updates cause the breakage? Perhaps it is the level of strictness about what software is allowed into the distribution ... our refusal to include a "restricted component" repository which makes the life of a user who doesn't care easier? One thing about the Fedora vs. Ubuntu comparison that I always find striking when I think about it is that the Fedora community's actions align closely to free software but the community doesn't seem very fond of calling it that, while the Ubuntu community actions align more closely (at least in my mind) with the open source movement (in terms of putting a higher initial premium on use, "we'll get to the philosophy part later") but its community prefers the association with free software. In the far back corners of my brain I recall people reminding others that both the free software and open source camps were part of the same community and I think it is important to keep in mind that Fedora and Ubuntu are as well. John From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 22 14:59:13 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:59:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE064D0.4040201@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote: > 2009/10/22 M?ir?n Duffy : >> On 10/22/2009 09:37 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: >>> I'm just going to bring up the elephant in the room, at least the one I >>> see. ?Up until this discussion I was under the impression that Ubuntu and >>> us were not in direct competition. ?They were catering to noobs and >>> general users, we were catering to enthusiasts and experienced users. >>> Coming out of this conversation (not just with Paul but with everyone) it >>> seems clear that Ubuntu's goals and our goals greatly overlap if not >>> completely overlap. > > I think characterizing Ubuntu as catering to noobs is a gross > simplification of their philosophy and mission. They advertise a > server distribution on their front page unlike Fedora and I doubt its > target audience is a bunch of noobs. They have a large and broad > community and a very clear statement of their philosophy that in some > important ways I think is stronger and more clear about certain things > I care very much about. > > http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy > > In practice, I think Fedora's actions speak louder than its words. > >> I don't think our goals do overlap though. To us, following an >> excellent, open process of producing software is just as important as >> producing excellent, open source software. One of our goals is to be a >> model and an example of that process, and to prove it works so it may be >> taken up by other domains. >> >> I don't think they care about that at all. >> >> To us, the means are not justified by the ends - they are just as >> important. I think to Ubuntu, the ends justify the means. > > In the far back corners of my brain this rings a bell reminding me of > the arguments I listened to between the free software and open source > camps when the idea of rebranding free software first began to > surface. > >>> The problem? ?They are KILLING us. ?I'm not talking about market share, >>> I'm talking about my recent converts from Fedora to Ubuntu. ?I haven't had >>> to do a single thing to my wifes computer since I put Ubuntu on there >>> except setup my printer. ?With Fedora I was on it almost daily. >> >> Did yum updates cause the breakage? > > Perhaps it is the level of strictness about what software is allowed > into the distribution ... our refusal to include a "restricted > component" repository which makes the life of a user who doesn't care > easier? > > One thing about the Fedora vs. Ubuntu comparison that I always find > striking when I think about it is that the Fedora community's actions > align closely to free software but the community doesn't seem very > fond of calling it that, while the Ubuntu community actions align more > closely (at least in my mind) with the open source movement (in terms > of putting a higher initial premium on use, "we'll get to the > philosophy part later") but its community prefers the association with > free software. > > In the far back corners of my brain I recall people reminding others > that both the free software and open source camps were part of the > same community and I think it is important to keep in mind that Fedora > and Ubuntu are as well. yes, if only we'd give in on our core values, then we'd win.. just not sure _what_ we'd win. -sv From walters at verbum.org Thu Oct 22 15:03:42 2009 From: walters at verbum.org (Colin Walters) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:03:42 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> <4AE05FB8.8080405@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > sig in fedora would love to produce a linux and freesoftware desktop that is > a lot like mac osx. They seem interested in breaking track with a lot of > things that fedora - especially as a server-oriented os - uses. This > includes the packaging system, package management, dynamic vs static linking > of libraries, bundling libraries with apps. It may include good portions of > the filesystem hierarchy standard. No, this is incorrect. Look - no one has a stranglehold on innovation. Mac OS X has some nice things that we look at, yes. But so does Windows. And so does Linux/Unix/Fedora/X/GNOME. And all of these systems have various not-so-good things. The desktop SIG is not interested in changing all of the technical goo just to change it. > Now, folks who are interested more specifically in servers DO care about the > pkg mgmt system, about replicable and configurable deployment, about shared > libs, about the FHS and about continuity with the last 30yrs of unix > computing. No, the desktop SIG cares about a lot of that too largely. For example, you may have seen me complaining about changes to the live image only that aren't reflected in comps (which is how we expect people to do replicated, configurable deployment). From skvidal at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 22 15:06:36 2009 From: skvidal at fedoraproject.org (Seth Vidal) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:06:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> <4AE05FB8.8080405@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Colin Walters wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: >> >> sig in fedora would love to produce a linux and freesoftware desktop that is >> a lot like mac osx. They seem interested in breaking track with a lot of >> things that fedora - especially as a server-oriented os - uses. This >> includes the packaging system, package management, dynamic vs static linking >> of libraries, bundling libraries with apps. It may include good portions of >> the filesystem hierarchy standard. > > No, this is incorrect. Look - no one has a stranglehold on > innovation. Mac OS X has some nice things that we look at, yes. But > so does Windows. And so does Linux/Unix/Fedora/X/GNOME. > > And all of these systems have various not-so-good things. The desktop > SIG is not interested in changing all of the technical goo just to > change it. > >> Now, folks who are interested more specifically in servers DO care about the >> pkg mgmt system, about replicable and configurable deployment, about shared >> libs, about the FHS and about continuity with the last 30yrs of unix >> computing. > > No, the desktop SIG cares about a lot of that too largely. For > example, you may have seen me complaining about changes to the live > image only that aren't reflected in comps (which is how we expect > people to do replicated, configurable deployment). Breaking with the FHS and having package bundles and including libraries in certain packages are 3 points I have heard specifically raised as desired goals over the last few years. -sv From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 15:40:45 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:40:45 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> References: <507738ef0910150224w397be74y947b60ce46818e4@mail.gmail.com> <4AD73628.5090006@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD746D4.2080301@linuxgrrl.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20091022154045.GA11751@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:19:20PM -0400, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: [...snip...] > Specifically focusing on #2, I would like to suggest that the target > user for Fedora the desktop distribution is a person of RHCT or > equivalent technical skill who would like to check their webmail in a > browser. > > Points: > > - What is meant by 'RHCT or equivalent' is that this is a person who > does not need to have 'using a mouse,' 'drag and drop', 'browser tabs', > and 'right click menus' explained to them. He/she gets it. This is a > person who feels comfortable installing their computer on their own, > burning DVDs, and if pointed to instructions, is comfortable opening up > a terminal and running commands or installing non-packaged software as > instructed (to work around issues, e.g., adding extra yum repos or > installing non-free video card drivers from a tarball if provided some > direction.) > > - What is not meant by RHCT or equivalent: the person does not > necessarily have to be a Fedora user. He or she could have the > equivalent level of comfort with Windows or OS X never having touched a > Linux distro, or Fedora specifically. If this person is a Windows user, > they're a power user and maybe comfortable with installing some of the > tweak UI bits for that, or in OS X are comfortable working in the > terminal or have ports configured. > > So the story I would like to design to, from the Fedora website to > running the desktop is: > > I am a person who is comfortable with computers. I hear about Fedora. I > go to the Fedora website. The Fedora website appeals to me and convinces > me that it's something worth trying. I find a download of Fedora that > will work for me quickly and without stress. I am able to download that > file and manipulate it in a way that it is install media I can insert > into my machine in 10 minutes or less. I am able to successfully run the > installer on my first attempt and progress through the questions it asks > me in 5 minutes or less. I expect to have a running system in 15 minutes > or less. I expect it to boot without errors or crashes on the first > attempt, and I expect to be in a running browser in less than 3 minutes > from a fresh boot. I like the start you've put together here, and I think we should further develop the expectations to cover the case of "I found a problem, and it's immediately clear to me how to report that and/or get help." That case involves a lot of sub-cases, such as: * My program crashed and I want to report it, and expect a clear dialog and instructions that will help me do so * I want to set up a printer and need help, so I expect to be able to find and consult the Fedora Project's sources for community help such as IRC or a mailing list, given minutes of time -- 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 duffy at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 22 15:51:28 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:51:28 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <4AE064D0.4040201@fedoraproject.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE064D0.4040201@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4AE07F80.6030204@fedoraproject.org> On 10/22/2009 09:57 AM, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > On 10/22/2009 09:37 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: >> I'm just going to bring up the elephant in the room, at least the one I >> see. Up until this discussion I was under the impression that Ubuntu and >> us were not in direct competition. They were catering to noobs and >> general users, we were catering to enthusiasts and experienced users. >> Coming out of this conversation (not just with Paul but with everyone) it >> seems clear that Ubuntu's goals and our goals greatly overlap if not >> completely overlap. > > I don't think our goals do overlap though. To us, following an > excellent, open process of producing software is just as important as > producing excellent, open source software. One of our goals is to be a > model and an example of that process, and to prove it works so it may be > taken up by other domains. One point I failed to make is for us to succeed in our goal doesn't mean we have to succeed in theirs. Maybe we can't (or don't want to) get Fedora such that your wife or my younger brother can use it without a great deal of support. But I think for us to prove our model works, we need to produce something excellent using it, and I don't think we are there yet. We don't need to target Ubuntu's user base in order to produce something excellent, something polished, something that is delightful to use and makes people's lives easier, something that impresses them such that they care about how it was made. ~m From walters at verbum.org Thu Oct 22 16:13:16 2009 From: walters at verbum.org (Colin Walters) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:13:16 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: References: <4AD61FC2.7090208@redhat.com> <4AD76010.8050803@linuxgrrl.com> <20091021210136.GF933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4ADFA508.9020903@fedoraproject.org> <4AE05FB8.8080405@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > Breaking ?with the FHS and having package bundles and including libraries in > certain packages are 3 points I have heard specifically raised as desired > goals over the last few years. I don't think any of these are blockers for the most important user experience improvements that desktop could use from the base OS. On the other hand, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 is a blocker for something that would really improve desktop experience, and in that bug that's desktop trying to work within the system. And you gave a lot of good advice there, thanks! What we need is to just be able to execute better on building on top of the current system. A lot of the things we want for desktop (example: writing an app, deploying it, and allowing users to install it should be way, way easier than it is now) has components that cross development, packagekit, desktop application menu, fedora. And given that the current "system" (packages basically) does solve a lot of hard problems, it makes sense to build on what we have than replace it. From jwboyer at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 16:25:25 2009 From: jwboyer at gmail.com (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:25:25 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022141745.GD7368@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022141745.GD7368@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <20091022162525.GG3807@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:17:45AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: >> I bring it up because I still honestly don't know your stance on this and >> being the project lead it's pretty important to this discussion. Are we >> excluding people or are we including everyone? > >I'm sorry I haven't been clear enough, in that case. "Everyone" is >too broad and there's no way we can make release, QA, or any other >criteria around that definition. Any detail, no matter how small, is >going to be important to somebody and for that person, might be a >blocker on a release. With that target we would have a hard time ever >releasing something. So: > >We should target computer-literate users who are making a conscious >choice to switch to Linux, are willing to help a developer debug a >problem if one occurs, and use their system to connect to the Internet >and run a general set of productivity and communication tools (connect >to network, update system if needed, browse Web, use our help venues >including mail and IRC). These users need not be developers, >programmers, sysadmins, or tinkerers. By targeting this type of user, >and by fixing things we're not doing right for this type of user, >we'll also fix a lot of other people's pain, including people in our >core contributor audience. > >I would like to have a much longer and more detailed set of criteria >for what this person needs to be able to do from the moment they boot >the installation media, but that's a next step. Mairin Duffy sort of >started down this road and I think there's a lot we can add to her >description of what the user should expect to be able to do. > >If it helps you gain clarity at all, I think Bill Nottingham and I are >in pretty good agreement. If the above isn't clear to you please let >me know how and I'll be happy to be more descriptive. Considering this pretty much matches the description of the target user I sent out as my reply to the orginal email that started this thread, I think you could count me as in agreement as well. josh From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 22 18:36:01 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:36:01 -0400 Subject: "What is the Fedora Project?" In-Reply-To: <20091022162525.GG3807@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <4ACC14FD.4060900@redhat.com> <20091007232734.GD13468@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022035203.GQ933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022044249.GS933@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022141745.GD7368@victoria.internal.frields.org> <20091022162525.GG3807@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20091022183601.GH11751@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:25:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:17:45AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> I bring it up because I still honestly don't know your stance on this and > >> being the project lead it's pretty important to this discussion. Are we > >> excluding people or are we including everyone? > > > >I'm sorry I haven't been clear enough, in that case. "Everyone" is > >too broad and there's no way we can make release, QA, or any other > >criteria around that definition. Any detail, no matter how small, is > >going to be important to somebody and for that person, might be a > >blocker on a release. With that target we would have a hard time ever > >releasing something. So: > > > >We should target computer-literate users who are making a conscious > >choice to switch to Linux, are willing to help a developer debug a > >problem if one occurs, and use their system to connect to the Internet > >and run a general set of productivity and communication tools (connect > >to network, update system if needed, browse Web, use our help venues > >including mail and IRC). These users need not be developers, > >programmers, sysadmins, or tinkerers. By targeting this type of user, > >and by fixing things we're not doing right for this type of user, > >we'll also fix a lot of other people's pain, including people in our > >core contributor audience. > > > >I would like to have a much longer and more detailed set of criteria > >for what this person needs to be able to do from the moment they boot > >the installation media, but that's a next step. Mairin Duffy sort of > >started down this road and I think there's a lot we can add to her > >description of what the user should expect to be able to do. > > > >If it helps you gain clarity at all, I think Bill Nottingham and I are > >in pretty good agreement. If the above isn't clear to you please let > >me know how and I'll be happy to be more descriptive. > > Considering this pretty much matches the description of the target user > I sent out as my reply to the orginal email that started this thread, I > think you could count me as in agreement as well. Fantastic. The Board came together around this as well in today's meeting. I will get those notes published, and a summary to the FAB list, by tonight. I'm running a little behind with the Fedora Activity Day I'm hosting starting tomorrow, picking up travelers today, etc. But I'll get it here on the list as soon as humanly possible. -- 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 mchua at fedoraproject.org Sun Oct 25 05:30:00 2009 From: mchua at fedoraproject.org (Mel Chua) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:30:00 -0400 Subject: Request your FUDCon funding now: cutoff Thursday 19:30 UTC Message-ID: <4AE3E258.3000509@fedoraproject.org> We?d like to wrap up budgeting for FUDCon Toronto 2009 as the happy date draws nearer. And we need your help. Ask us for money! Before Thursday October 29 at 19:30 UTC, that is. More details here (the blog post below will lead you to instructions on the wiki outlining how to request funding): http://blog.melchua.com/2009/10/25/request-your-fudcon-funding-now-cutoff-thursday-1930-utc/ I look forward to a flooded inbox on Thursday afternoon. ;) --Mel From stickster at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 19:40:09 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:40:09 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-10-22 UTC 1600 Message-ID: <20091026194009.GO21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Apologies for this being several days late to the list. I was working on a note to publish at the same time, and between that delay and the FAD I helped run this weekend I simply lost sync. * * * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-10-22 == Roll Call == * Present: Christopher Aillon, Bill Nottingham, Dimitris Glezos, Mike McGrath, Dennis Gilmore, Matt Domsch, Paul Frields * Regrets: Josh Boyer, John Poelstra, Tom 'spot' Callaway == Last meeting == https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-10-01 == Proposed Agenda == === Trademark license agreement update === * Current status ** Pam Chestek did collaborative editing on the wiki with input from FAB ** Final version has been created ** Multiple recipients in queue to receive it ** Door is open for new signers in the future ** We will also offer to current holders so that they have the option of switching to the new agreement === Commercial non-software goods license === https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-09-10#t10_Sep_13:25 * Current status report via Paul ** No time in Comm-Arch team schedule for a Finance meeting ** Paul re-tickled Max, we will set up a meeting to find out whether we can set up a receiving fund for Fedora === Target audience for distribution === https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/FAB_roundup * Paul: The context is "Where do we want to be" * Need to have more definitive list of the things we expect the target audience to be able to do with the Fedora distribution ** Installation/upgrade ** Specific core tasks (reboot, connect to Internet, system update, browse, IM/IRC) and what the functional tolerance is -- meaning what is acceptable performance for each of these ** Time might be one criterion, errors/fallback might be another ** This helps us make better release criteria, determine blockers, etc. * mmcgrath: Some people think Fedora is for everyone, some don't. * Chris - The conversation may actually not be about who Fedora is for, but rather people just being un happy with the updates. * General agreement that releases are not known for quality, updates after a release get even worse. * Paul: Probably ad-hoc decisions about updates, blockers, prioritization ** Example - we provide help via IRC but a default install didn't include a IRC client ** Jesse posted his idea for an unfrozen rawhide and better-managed current release target repo *** Board agrees: GO FORTH AND DO. ** Paul: We should set the audience before setting the process ** caillon: but if we don't fix the process, our target will suffer no matter who they are *** Paul agrees, you can't do one and not the other ** Paul: Our vision should be: "to better fit the needs of *this* audience" *** People voluntarily switching to Linux, not really "my aunt Tessie" *** People who are not necessarily hackers, but are familiar with computers *** People who are likely to fix something that is not working (or at least collaborate or report when it's not working) *** List of tasks one can do? **** web browsing, email, office productivity, graphic arts, publishing, audio listeners, web serving, collaboration & communication, software developers ** There may be network benefits of this approach - by targeting these, we may be more usable for other cases, even if they're not our goal. ** dimitris: Perceived lack is around polish. We may not be missing * broad targets horribly, but there's a lot of fine tuning that needs to be done better. ** mmcgrath: A big thing we're missing is self-control with updates. ** mdomsch: (channeling skvidal) You as a Fedora packager essentially have root access on millions of systems. Treat them with appropriate care ** mmcgrath: have FESCo and/or QA come up with a mandated policy around stable release updates. ** caillon: also need to make sure that people follow those policies; see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-October/msg00100.html * Decision item needed. ** What is our target audience? (see above) ** The Board will now pursue goals for process changes that make quality higher for that target * mdomsch: Board focus on quality instead of quantity of packages ** mmcgrath: how can we measure quality? *** How many update breakages? *** How many updates overall? (This is more symptomatic than root-cause related) ** This is an area where we can learn from others. ** critical path packages need push approval for stable releases. Perhaps we don't have the resources in place to do all packages. ** dimitris: If we increase visibility when a breakage happens, it's less likely people will be careless. Are we giving enough visibility to breakage, or do we just fix it quietly? *** Sheriffs will help in this visibility. ** mmcgrath: How do we prevent "Daddy says no, I'll ask Mommy" *** caillon: With sherrifs, this has not been a big problem. All nos get logged, so that should be referenced before saying yes. * ACTION: Paul will follow note publishing with a summary to FAB of the agreed points: ** Target audience statement from above, which represents broadest consensus, to be further specified collaboratively ** Board will set update discipline goals and look to FESCo to help design/implement ** Board concurs with Jesse Keating's expanded explanation of the "Unfozen Rawhide" proposal and will work to make it happen fully in the F13 cycle. == New Business == === Elections === * mdomsch looking for someone who might like to take up Fedora election coordination work ** Which groups are up? Board 1/2, FESCo 1/2, Ambassadors (all?), F-13 name... who else? ** What events need to be held? ** When will they be held? *** start elections after FUDCon, which closes Dec. 7 *** use FUDCon for an additional in-person town hall meeting * ACTION: MDomsch will kick this off on FAB, and look for existing and new volunteers to drive it == Next meeting == * AGREED: 2009-10-29 UTC 1600 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFK5fsZrNvJN70RNxcRAgWKAJ9Tt0zVuxdenTCTNv9x+IHqugb+QgCguR/+ nUW9DoeTiHBsLpx/MkaYSc0= =7G9P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stickster at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 20:37:47 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:37:47 -0400 Subject: Target audience Message-ID: <20091026203747.GP21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> Yup, it's another long FPL email, be warned! :-) I wanted to write out some summary and context about previous discussions here, and by the Board, that would be helpful in setting up some of the sessions I would like to hold at FUDCon. In our Thursday meeting[1], the Board talked at length about the lengthy discussions that have been happening on this list, which have been both spirited and, as always, very helpful. Continuing to make the best possible Fedora distribution is a top priority to everyone who works on it. We all want to see the Fedora Project succeed as the leader in advancing free and open source software, and the Fedora distribution is how we put our best work in front of a wide audience twice a year (and at all times in between!). And of course we want the Fedora Project to continue to be a vibrant community where contributors pursue a variety of goals, sharing our core values of Friends, Freedom, Features, and First. The specific discussion about making the best possible distro has focused in on target audience. This is a sensible (and arguably overdue) step, because to provide a Fedora that satisfies someone, we first have to know who that person is, and differentiate them from the mass of "everyone," and also we need to be clear in what we expect them to be able to do. We found four defining characteristics that we believe best describe the Fedora distribution's target audience: Someone who (1) is voluntarily switching to Linux, (2) is familiar with computers, but is not necessarily a hacker or developer, (3) is likely to collaborate in some fashion when something's wrong with Fedora, and (4) wants to use Fedora for general productivity, either using desktop applications or a Web browser. This target audience does not a major shift away from what most people in the Fedora community believe. Having a target audience also does not preclude any feature development that goes beyond that audience. By having an audience in mind, we as a community can prioritize resources, and at the same time make it possible for people who want to concentrate on other audiences to build community around those efforts. Fedora teams already are making progress on this, and one example is our Fedora QA team -- which opens a schedule of community test days for every release, and provides information on hosting them. Thanks to our remixing tools, anyone can put together test day spins to facilitate the testing. Anyone who is interested in technical goals, whether they are part of the target audience focus or not, has a place and resources in the Fedora Project to help achieve them. The Board members and I believe that making the experiences of getting, using, and contributing to Fedora better for the target audience will also improve them for our close community as well. This is not an either-or proposition, but a win-win. In essence, the target audience is much larger than the group of people in Fedora who are, say, subscribed to this list; or who develop features, collateral, and other content for Fedora; or who do great Fedora advocacy work, whether through speaking, writing, or in any number of other ways. When we improve Fedora from the perspective of that superset of people, we are also very likely improving it for our core contributor community as well. Those people may end up telling others about their experience, and thereby expand our actual user base even beyond its substantial current size. That's a very fortunate consequence of making a better product, but our goal is not to simply target "everyone," which isn't a reasonable goal given finite resources. We wouldn't be unhappy if more people started using Fedora casually, even outside our audience, but at the same time we want to continue to build something designed for the people we think we can reasonably please. We don't delude ourselves that the target audience definition is now "done." What we have now is simply a shared understanding of where to start, and we can start adding definitions of tasks and expectations, to understand an example or profile of our target audience -- what this person wants, understands, needs, is like. That work is going to require input from people who know more about user design than any single person in one meeting. I'm hoping people here can constructively help us draft this profile on the wiki, or use other collaboration tools to create a better shared understanding of this profile. Mairin Duffy recently posted her take[2] on starting this work and I'd like to see even more definition added to the profile. Of course, this doesn't magically happen overnight. In fact, it can't happen at all without coming together as a community to address the nuts and bolts of actually fixing things that are broken. Part of the miracle of the Fedora community is that we aren't afraid to admit a failure, understand it, and fix it and move on. Hoping to contribute to solutions, the Board discussed some of the brokenness, issues we often hear from people who do fall within our target audience, including people who are in our large community of contributors. Among those were frequency and reliability of updates and upgrades. If we want to attain the goal of making our audience happy, as a community we need to do a better job of not breaking their systems or causing them to doubt the quality of the software they're receiving. This is a topic that will bear further discussion, obviously. Together we need to figure out the best ways to balance our desire for advancing free and open source software (i.e. the Fedora Project mission) with the provision and promotion of a platform that our target audience can confidently use. I've referred to this in the past as "update discipline" but not in a flippant manner. I don't mean "discipline" in the sense of reward/punishment or anything like that -- rather, in the sense of a community dedication to doing things well, consistently. At least one set of ideas has been written up already[3] to brainstorm on the problem, and while I think there's still work to do to figure out a solution, I think there's already quite some consensus that the problem exists, is important, and is worth trying to solve. Finally, the Board talked about the proposal for "unfrozen Rawhide,"[4] which Jesse Keating offered at a Fedora event this summer. Just like many of our contributors, we've felt the pain of having an uninstallable Rawhide, which negatively affects everyone's ability to more efficiently deliver new code and features. In essence, Rawhide has been too often "eating babies" indiscriminately, and we need to improve its contribution to our develoment ecosystem. The Board feels that Jesse's proposal not only has the potential to help us achieve a more installable Rawhide, but if it's managed correctly we could have a Rawhide that more of our core contributors could actually use during and prior to test phases -- while not undoing our ability to allow and encourage innovation and new ideas. So in summary the three points that came out of Thursday's board meeting -- target audience, better update discipline, and a more useful Rawhide -- are all topics that we intend to discuss further here, and at the FUDCon in Toronto[5]. We'll have a majority of both the Board and FESCo representatives together then, along with a wide selection of our community, to help put together a roadmap for the next evolution of Fedora. I'm very excited about that event, and can't wait to take advantage of the opportunity to help move Fedora forward. And although it goes without saying, as always I'm very grateful to be working with such an impassioned and dedicated community of contributors. * * * [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-October/msg00349.html [2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-October/msg00313.html [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience [4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-October/msg00318.html [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FUDCon:Toronto_2009 -- 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 Mon Oct 26 21:45:25 2009 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:45:25 -0600 Subject: Upcoming Fedora elections Message-ID: <20091026214525.GA24576@domsch.com> Yes, it's that time of year again. Rain is falling, another Fedora release is about to conquer the known world, and volunteers everywhere are busy preparing their ideal Fedora Mission Statements to captivate the electorate. Fedora's Winter Election is upon us. The first order of business is to find an Election Coordinator. For the last 2 election cycles I have volunteered for this role, with the able assistance of John Rose (inode0), and Thorsten Leemhuis (thl) and others. This cycle, I would like someone besides myself from the Fedora community to volunteer as Election Coordinator. Raise your hand, don't be shy! If you have been harboring a secret (or public) list of all my mistakes, here's your chance to set things right! As Election Coordinator, you will have the opportunity to: * propose, get buy-in, and finalize the schedule * schedule forums (traditionally IRC and with FUDCon Toronto, Live) * seek forum moderators * if desired, gather questions from the electorate, distribute to the candidates, gather and post their answers. * coordinate with Infrastructure to be sure the elections app is ready. Second, a schedule will need to be set. At the Board meeting this week, we agreed that it would be nice to hold in-person forums at FUDCon Toronto, December 5-7, for those who can attend. Our election rules require us to complete the election within 30 days of the Fedora 12 release, so must end by December 17. Per Nigel Jones, author of our voting system, most of the votes cast were within the first 2-3 days, so running it Dec 8-17 would be sufficient. Before these, we typically hold nominations for 2 weeks, and a week for IRC Town Halls to be scheduled. Thorsten also requested after the last election that we have a few days between end of nominations and beginning of the town halls, to allow time for candidates to be given a set of questions, and sufficent time to answer. Third, we need to be sure of all the committees who are holding an election. The committee chairs can assist here. I believe that the Board, FESCo, and Ambassadors are electing members, and that the Fedora 13 naming election will happen too. Are there any I missed? Feedback on prior elections, ideas for how to improve this cycle, and volunteers for Election Coordinator all welcome. Thanks, Matt From stickster at gmail.com Mon Oct 26 22:15:20 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:15:20 -0400 Subject: Upcoming Fedora elections In-Reply-To: <20091026214525.GA24576@domsch.com> References: <20091026214525.GA24576@domsch.com> Message-ID: <20091026221520.GV21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 03:45:25PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote: > Yes, it's that time of year again. Rain is falling, another Fedora > release is about to conquer the known world, and volunteers everywhere > are busy preparing their ideal Fedora Mission Statements to captivate > the electorate. Fedora's Winter Election is upon us. > > The first order of business is to find an Election Coordinator. For > the last 2 election cycles I have volunteered for this role, with the > able assistance of John Rose (inode0), and Thorsten Leemhuis (thl) and > others. This cycle, I would like someone besides myself from the Fedora > community to volunteer as Election Coordinator. Raise your hand, > don't be shy! If you have been harboring a secret (or public) list of > all my mistakes, here's your chance to set things right! I think you did a great job, but I also appreciate that we should try passing the baton. I'd love someone to volunteer to take up the banner. > As Election Coordinator, you will have the opportunity to: > * propose, get buy-in, and finalize the schedule > * schedule forums (traditionally IRC and with FUDCon Toronto, Live) > * seek forum moderators > * if desired, gather questions from the electorate, distribute to the > candidates, gather and post their answers. > * coordinate with Infrastructure to be sure the elections app is > ready. We can arrange for the forum responsibilities to be shared, as in the last cycle, so that no one has to conduct all of them. That worked out quite well as I recall. > Second, a schedule will need to be set. At the Board meeting this > week, we agreed that it would be nice to hold in-person forums at > FUDCon Toronto, December 5-7, for those who can attend. Our election > rules require us to complete the election within 30 days of the Fedora > 12 release, so must end by December 17. Per Nigel Jones, author of > our voting system, most of the votes cast were within the first 2-3 > days, so running it Dec 8-17 would be sufficient. My recollection from the last general election is that I asked Nigel about the voting rates and it was clustered pretty heavily at the beginning. I'm sure if I recalled that wrong, he'll pitch in a correction here. > Before these, we typically hold nominations for 2 weeks, and a week > for IRC Town Halls to be scheduled. Thorsten also requested after the > last election that we have a few days between end of nominations and > beginning of the town halls, to allow time for candidates to be given > a set of questions, and sufficent time to answer. > > Third, we need to be sure of all the committees who are holding an > election. The committee chairs can assist here. I believe that the > Board, FESCo, and Ambassadors are electing members, and that the > Fedora 13 naming election will happen too. Are there any I missed? I believe the Fedora 13 naming election will be happening significantly before FUDCon, so that we can announce the new name at the event. Although that's not technically a requirement, and can be dropped if desired, it's a little bit of extra fun. Names would be collected around the second week in November and a vote around the end of the month. > Feedback on prior elections, ideas for how to improve this cycle, and > volunteers for Election Coordinator all welcome. Matt, thanks for your previous good work in running elections, and for helping to kick this off. -- 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 kanarip at kanarip.com Mon Oct 26 22:34:06 2009 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:34:06 +0100 Subject: Target audience In-Reply-To: <20091026203747.GP21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <20091026203747.GP21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4AE623DE.1030304@kanarip.com> On 10/26/2009 09:37 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Finally, the Board talked about the proposal for "unfrozen > Rawhide,"[4] which Jesse Keating offered at a Fedora event this > summer. Just like many of our contributors, we've felt the pain of > having an uninstallable Rawhide, which negatively affects everyone's > ability to more efficiently deliver new code and features. In > essence, Rawhide has been too often "eating babies" indiscriminately, > and we need to improve its contribution to our develoment ecosystem. > The Board feels that Jesse's proposal not only has the potential to > help us achieve a more installable Rawhide, but if it's managed > correctly we could have a Rawhide that more of our core contributors > could actually use during and prior to test phases -- while not > undoing our ability to allow and encourage innovation and new ideas. > I'm thinking of this while we're talking about target audiences and their experiences... Where was it again I had heard an argument for improved consumer experience before? And so, because I've had this kind of conversation with the board before, not because I actually care about the answer on any of those questions; - How many extra builds do we anticipate for unfrozen rawhide vs. rolling or pending release? - How many extra resources in terms of storage, man-hours and ... well. you know. you've been there. up and until you get to the point with the million dollar question... And, FWIW, I think Jesse has a *great* proposal right there. When I say *great* I mean to say "Do it, get it done, before f13 -no pun intended, please! Need help?" -- Jeroen From mmcgrath at redhat.com Tue Oct 27 01:26:20 2009 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:26:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Target audience In-Reply-To: <4AE623DE.1030304@kanarip.com> References: <20091026203747.GP21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE623DE.1030304@kanarip.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > On 10/26/2009 09:37 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > Finally, the Board talked about the proposal for "unfrozen > > Rawhide,"[4] which Jesse Keating offered at a Fedora event this > > summer. Just like many of our contributors, we've felt the pain of > > having an uninstallable Rawhide, which negatively affects everyone's > > ability to more efficiently deliver new code and features. In > > essence, Rawhide has been too often "eating babies" indiscriminately, > > and we need to improve its contribution to our develoment ecosystem. > > The Board feels that Jesse's proposal not only has the potential to > > help us achieve a more installable Rawhide, but if it's managed > > correctly we could have a Rawhide that more of our core contributors > > could actually use during and prior to test phases -- while not > > undoing our ability to allow and encourage innovation and new ideas. > > > > I'm thinking of this while we're talking about target audiences and their > experiences... Where was it again I had heard an argument for improved > consumer experience before? > > And so, because I've had this kind of conversation with the board before, not > because I actually care about the answer on any of those questions; > > - How many extra builds do we anticipate for unfrozen rawhide vs. rolling or > pending release? > I think this would be a good FUDCon topic actually. We've gotten pretty ok at ballparking stuff like this. I think the logic to find this number would look something like this: 1) The more experimental rawhide release would behave almost exactly as it does now. Probably some additional builds because people will be quicker to try stuff out. Since we don't have this number I might propose an additional 10%, I'll look through logs though to see if I can't get a better feel for this. 2) The less experimental rawhide (next-release) would likely have fewer builds then the experimental rawhide (and probably fewer then the current rawhide) but probably more then what is in our current stable release. Question: Will the workflow go from experimental -> next release or will builds be separate? > - How many extra resources in terms of storage, man-hours and ... > If we aren't signing next release or rawhide (or are signing them with the same key at some point in the future) then we can hardlink between rawhide and next release to save some storage both on /mnt/koji and the mirrors. I should also mention that we've started doing more aggressive garbage collection on /mnt/koji to save space. Also our public mirror system is now 4.5T in size though we've sort of made an unspoken agreement to keep fedora-enchilada and epel to under 1T as to not overwhelm the mirrors. I'll chew on some of those questions a bit at least for the storage side of things. -Mike From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Oct 27 01:29:11 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:59:11 +0530 Subject: Target audience In-Reply-To: References: <20091026203747.GP21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE623DE.1030304@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4AE64CE7.1090306@fedoraproject.org> On 10/27/2009 06:56 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: >> > > I think this would be a good FUDCon topic actually. We've gotten pretty > ok at ballparking stuff like this. I think the logic to find this number > would look something like this: > > 1) The more experimental rawhide release would behave almost exactly as it > does now. Probably some additional builds because people will be quicker > to try stuff out. Since we don't have this number I might propose an > additional 10%, I'll look through logs though to see if I can't get a > better feel for this. > > 2) The less experimental rawhide (next-release) would likely have fewer > builds then the experimental rawhide (and probably fewer then the current > rawhide) but probably more then what is in our current stable release. I think it would be useful if we call them by different names rather rather than calling them both Rawhide. Rahul From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Oct 27 01:50:30 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:50:30 -0700 Subject: Target audience In-Reply-To: References: <20091026203747.GP21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE623DE.1030304@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <1256608230.3463.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 20:26 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > I think this would be a good FUDCon topic actually. We've gotten pretty > ok at ballparking stuff like this. I think the logic to find this number > would look something like this: > > 1) The more experimental rawhide release would behave almost exactly as it > does now. Probably some additional builds because people will be quicker > to try stuff out. Since we don't have this number I might propose an > additional 10%, I'll look through logs though to see if I can't get a > better feel for this. > > 2) The less experimental rawhide (next-release) would likely have fewer > builds then the experimental rawhide (and probably fewer then the current > rawhide) but probably more then what is in our current stable release. > > Question: Will the workflow go from experimental -> next release or will > builds be separate? Builds will be separate. At the time of branching, all the builds from experimental will be bundled into the next release tag, but from that point on we'll have branched SCM, so if you want to build for next-release, you have to build from a branch, which will go to a different target and buildroot and etc.. than builds from devel/. > > > - How many extra resources in terms of storage, man-hours and ... > > > > If we aren't signing next release or rawhide (or are signing them with the > same key at some point in the future) then we can hardlink between rawhide > and next release to save some storage both on /mnt/koji and the mirrors. That would be the plan. Ideally we're signing everything with a Fedora Build Key, and that would be the only key in use for the rpms. All hardlinking all the time. If that doesn't happen, then we'll be able to hardlink from experimental into next release, until it comes time to sign everything in next release at which point hardlinks break. Hopefully we won't go that route. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Oct 27 01:51:19 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:51:19 -0700 Subject: Target audience In-Reply-To: <4AE64CE7.1090306@fedoraproject.org> References: <20091026203747.GP21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE623DE.1030304@kanarip.com> <4AE64CE7.1090306@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1256608279.3463.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2009-10-27 at 06:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I think it would be useful if we call them by different names rather > rather than calling them both Rawhide. > > I'm not planning on calling them both rawhide. There will only be one rawhide, and it will never be stopped. We'll have a pending release tree that will have to go by some other name (hey, we have release code names you know....) -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From inode0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 28 05:43:10 2009 From: inode0 at gmail.com (inode0) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:43:10 -0500 Subject: Upcoming Fedora elections In-Reply-To: <20091026214525.GA24576@domsch.com> References: <20091026214525.GA24576@domsch.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: > Yes, it's that time of year again. ?Rain is falling, another Fedora > release is about to conquer the known world, and volunteers everywhere > are busy preparing their ideal Fedora Mission Statements to captivate > the electorate. ?Fedora's Winter Election is upon us. > > The first order of business is to find an Election Coordinator. ?For > the last 2 election cycles I have volunteered for this role, with the > able assistance of John Rose (inode0), and Thorsten Leemhuis (thl) and > others. ?This cycle, I would like someone besides myself from the Fedora > community to volunteer as Election Coordinator. ?Raise your hand, > don't be shy! ?If you have been harboring a secret (or public) list of > all my mistakes, here's your chance to set things right! I'm not harboring anything but admiration but I am willing to help out more this cycle if you haven't been overrun with volunteers. This would help prevent me from committing other offences, like moderating town hall meetings ... John From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Oct 29 02:14:23 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:14:23 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-10-22 UTC 1600 In-Reply-To: <20091026194009.GO21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <20091026194009.GO21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4AE8FA7F.9060204@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields said the following on 10/26/2009 12:40 PM Pacific Time: > ** Jesse posted his idea for an unfrozen rawhide and better-managed > current release target repo > *** Board agrees: GO FORTH AND DO. Does the board have any target milestones from Release Engineering for completion of this proposal? If not, can we get some? We've been talking about this proposal in a lot of places, but without a specific time line. As always, my scheduling services (in a non-board member capacity) are available and free of charge :) John From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 29 16:48:31 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:48:31 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-10-22 UTC 1600 In-Reply-To: <4AE8FA7F.9060204@redhat.com> References: <20091026194009.GO21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE8FA7F.9060204@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1256834911.2268.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 19:14 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > Does the board have any target milestones from Release Engineering for > completion of this proposal? If not, can we get some? We've been > talking about this proposal in a lot of places, but without a specific > time line. > > As always, my scheduling services (in a non-board member capacity) are > available and free of charge :) The first target was by beta branch of F12. That's why we rushed the FAD. However we just weren't able to hit that goal, so the new goal is by the time we would branch Fedora 13. I'm hoping to get a good list of work needed doing at FUDCon, complete with some dates to go by. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Oct 29 19:30:29 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:30:29 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-10-22 UTC 1600 In-Reply-To: <1256834911.2268.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20091026194009.GO21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE8FA7F.9060204@redhat.com> <1256834911.2268.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <4AE9ED55.9070804@redhat.com> On 10/29/2009 09:48 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 19:14 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: >> Does the board have any target milestones from Release Engineering for >> completion of this proposal? If not, can we get some? We've been >> talking about this proposal in a lot of places, but without a specific >> time line. >> >> As always, my scheduling services (in a non-board member capacity) are >> available and free of charge :) > > The first target was by beta branch of F12. That's why we rushed the > FAD. However we just weren't able to hit that goal, so the new goal is > by the time we would branch Fedora 13. I'm hoping to get a good list of > work needed doing at FUDCon, complete with some dates to go by. > I realize we missed our original goal of Fedora 12. As Fedora 13 is our new goal I was suggesting milestones (check in points) to make sure we stay on track and finish on time... like we've done with the more detailed schedules for each of the Fedora teams. Why not identify the work that needs to be done *before* FUDCon and then use FUDCon to write the code and make it happen? There are at least 2.5 weeks between GA and FUDCon. I'll volunteer to help lead planning the meetings. I'm just wondering if we'd get more "bang for our buck" if we used the live event to *do* the actual implementation instead of using it to talk about options, brainstorm, etc., a lot of which I thought happened at the FAD that created the original proposal. By planning ahead for the Fedora Talk FAD last week I'd estimate we accomplished twice or three times as much as we would have otherwise. We made a lot of progress on the implementation because everyone was there and could talk about it in real time as they did the work and encountered problems. All without the interruptions of every day work/life. John From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 29 20:02:32 2009 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:02:32 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-10-22 UTC 1600 In-Reply-To: <4AE9ED55.9070804@redhat.com> References: <20091026194009.GO21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE8FA7F.9060204@redhat.com> <1256834911.2268.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4AE9ED55.9070804@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1256846552.2268.61.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 12:30 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > I realize we missed our original goal of Fedora 12. As Fedora 13 is our > new goal I was suggesting milestones (check in points) to make sure we > stay on track and finish on time... like we've done with the more > detailed schedules for each of the Fedora teams. > > Why not identify the work that needs to be done *before* FUDCon and then > use FUDCon to write the code and make it happen? There are at least 2.5 > weeks between GA and FUDCon. I'll volunteer to help lead planning the > meetings. > > I'm just wondering if we'd get more "bang for our buck" if we used the > live event to *do* the actual implementation instead of using it to talk > about options, brainstorm, etc., a lot of which I thought happened at > the FAD that created the original proposal. > > By planning ahead for the Fedora Talk FAD last week I'd estimate we > accomplished twice or three times as much as we would have otherwise. > We made a lot of progress on the implementation because everyone was > there and could talk about it in real time as they did the work and > encountered problems. All without the interruptions of every day work/life. Because right now, I and the other people critical to to making this happen are all very busy trying to get F12 to happen on time. If there is enough time between the release of F12 and FUDCon, I'd be more than happy to pre-plan as much as possible. I cannot commit to having that planning done in time though. -- 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: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 20:22:19 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:22:19 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-10-22 UTC 1600 In-Reply-To: <1256846552.2268.61.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20091026194009.GO21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> <4AE8FA7F.9060204@redhat.com> <1256834911.2268.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4AE9ED55.9070804@redhat.com> <1256846552.2268.61.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20091029202219.GE2920@victoria.internal.frields.org> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 01:02:32PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 12:30 -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > > I realize we missed our original goal of Fedora 12. As Fedora 13 is our > > new goal I was suggesting milestones (check in points) to make sure we > > stay on track and finish on time... like we've done with the more > > detailed schedules for each of the Fedora teams. > > > > Why not identify the work that needs to be done *before* FUDCon and then > > use FUDCon to write the code and make it happen? There are at least 2.5 > > weeks between GA and FUDCon. I'll volunteer to help lead planning the > > meetings. > > > > I'm just wondering if we'd get more "bang for our buck" if we used the > > live event to *do* the actual implementation instead of using it to talk > > about options, brainstorm, etc., a lot of which I thought happened at > > the FAD that created the original proposal. > > > > By planning ahead for the Fedora Talk FAD last week I'd estimate we > > accomplished twice or three times as much as we would have otherwise. > > We made a lot of progress on the implementation because everyone was > > there and could talk about it in real time as they did the work and > > encountered problems. All without the interruptions of every day work/life. > > Because right now, I and the other people critical to to making this > happen are all very busy trying to get F12 to happen on time. If there > is enough time between the release of F12 and FUDCon, I'd be more than > happy to pre-plan as much as possible. I cannot commit to having that > planning done in time though. I have to agree that doing the brainstorming and ideating early, rather than onsite, saved a lot of time. But obviously F12 is the focus right now, so I also agree with Jesse that following the bits going out for F12 GA, a focus shift to ideating the Rawhide changes is in order, with a goal of having an agreed-upon plan in advance of FUDCon roughly three weeks later. It will be easier to accomplish that with transparency in advance, rather than coming up with all the ideas at FUDCon and then trying to push them through later. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug From stickster at gmail.com Thu Oct 29 20:23:50 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:23:50 -0400 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2009-10-29 UTC 1600 Message-ID: <20091029202350.GF2920@victoria.internal.frields.org> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-10-29 == Roll Call == * Attending: Tom "spot" Callaway, Mike McGrath, John Poelstra, Paul Frields, Bill Nottingham, Dennis Gilmore, Matt Domsch * Regrets: Christopher Aillon, Dimitris Glezos, Josh Boyer == Last meeting == https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-10-22 == Proposed Agenda == === Audience profile refinement === * Limit to 30 minutes * Use gobby to detail more characteristics, as a starting place ** People voluntarily switching to Linux (in general? or fedora in particular?), not really "my aunt Tessie" *** Better phrased -- conscious and independent choice to install and use a Linux platform *** Not being forced into it -- willing to do an installation *** Family member or friend support available (?) **** Paul disagrees with above -- We want people to be able to run Fedora without support from a friend/family member (its just a reason why someone might take the jump to linux) **** Does this mean we can assume an informed choice? Yes *** Why did this person switch then? **** stability **** free of cost, functionality **** lower risk (viruses, spyware, malware) **** Family relationship to RHEL/CentOS (familiarity) **** later: ***** free as in speech is secondary for many people, it's the hook that keeps them after they've already experienced the other beneficial effects ***** care about community later, after they discover the methodology and participation *** What does this person expect when she installs? **** Is comfortable with the idea that their whole hard disk may be erased **** Wants the installation to take as few steps as possible **** Does not want to be presented with choices that are not understandable ** People who are not necessarily hackers, but are familiar with computers *** (Not reached in time limit) ** People who are likely to fix something that is not working (or at least collaborate or report when it's not working) *** (Not reached in time limit) ** People looking to perform one or more of the following tasks: *** web browsing, email *** office productivity *** graphic arts *** publishing *** audio listeners *** simple web services *** collaboration & communication (IRC, gobby, IM) **** All facilities that get the user in touch with any of our help venues *** software development (cross platform, JAVA, not necessarily the development that we do) * Board made it partially into the first area, and realizes that this is not a project that can be done alone -- more of a thought exercise ** Not trying to create propaganda (Why switch?) -- rather to understand the person who we want to target, and create/maintain what they would naturally want to use * AGREED: Board will engage with more design folks to find out how we can do this methodically and transparently * ACTION: Paul to copy to a wiki page for collaboration with others === FUDCon sessions === * Suggestion: ** One session: FUDCon + Board roundtable Q & A (incl. target audience preso if needed) ** One session: Update discipline intro (hopefully presenting ML ideation, not starting from scratch). *** Need a proposal to present to the audience for feedback and revision during the session. (Paul is planning to take a first shot at this) (spot made a pseudo-proposal in the old thread-of-doom) ** Hackfests would take over work on updates, unfrozen Rawhide ** Election town hall is separate * Want: ** Feedback from community on target audience discussion ** Community to understand that both the board and FESCo are in favor of a more disciplined approach to updates *** hopefully a proposal has been drafted in advance that can be clarified or ratified * ACTION: Paul to take first shot at proposal, possibly using some or all of Spot's pseudo-proposal from FAB == Next Meeting == * Public IRC Meeting, 2009-11-05 * DST time change on Sunday, 2009-11-01 makes next meeting 1700 UTC, or same human time 12:00pm US-Eastern/9:00am US-Pacific * ACTION: Paul to send out notifications From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Oct 29 21:10:00 2009 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:10:00 -0700 Subject: Upcoming Fedora elections In-Reply-To: <20091026221520.GV21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> References: <20091026214525.GA24576@domsch.com> <20091026221520.GV21903@victoria.internal.frields.org> Message-ID: <4AEA04A8.1030606@redhat.com> On 10/26/2009 03:15 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > I believe the Fedora 13 naming election will be happening > significantly before FUDCon, so that we can announce the new name at > the event. Although that's not technically a requirement, and can be > dropped if desired, it's a little bit of extra fun. Names would be > collected around the second week in November and a vote around the end > of the month. I stubbed out the schedule for Fedora 13. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Name_suggestions_for_Fedora_13#Naming_Schedule John From stickster at gmail.com Fri Oct 30 13:18:25 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:18:25 -0400 Subject: Reminder: Fedora Board IRC meeting 1700 UTC 2009-11-05 Message-ID: <20091030131825.GO2920@victoria.internal.frields.org> The Board is holding its monthly public meeting on Thursday, November 5, 2009, at 1700 UTC[1] on IRC Freenode. For this meeting, the public is invited to do the following: * Join #fedora-board-meeting to see the Board's conversation. * Join #fedora-board-questions to discuss topics and post questions. This channel is read/write for everyone. The moderator will voice people from the queue, one at a time, in the #fedora-board-meeting channel. We'll limit time per voice as needed to give everyone in the queue a chance to be heard. The Board may reserve some time at the top of the hour to cover any agenda items as appropriate. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting! * * * [1] Note that daylight savings time ends in the USA on November 1, and on November 5, 1700 UTC == 12:00pm US Eastern == 9:00am US Pacific. -- 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: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stickster at gmail.com Fri Oct 30 13:18:25 2009 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:18:25 -0400 Subject: Reminder: Fedora Board IRC meeting 1700 UTC 2009-11-05 Message-ID: <20091030131825.GO2920@victoria.internal.frields.org> The Board is holding its monthly public meeting on Thursday, November 5, 2009, at 1700 UTC[1] on IRC Freenode. For this meeting, the public is invited to do the following: * Join #fedora-board-meeting to see the Board's conversation. * Join #fedora-board-questions to discuss topics and post questions. This channel is read/write for everyone. The moderator will voice people from the queue, one at a time, in the #fedora-board-meeting channel. We'll limit time per voice as needed to give everyone in the queue a chance to be heard. The Board may reserve some time at the top of the hour to cover any agenda items as appropriate. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting! * * * [1] Note that daylight savings time ends in the USA on November 1, and on November 5, 1700 UTC == 12:00pm US Eastern == 9:00am US Pacific. -- 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: 190 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