"What is the Fedora Project?"
inode0 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 14:40:47 UTC 2009
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> 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
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.
More information about the fedora-advisory-board