"What is the Fedora Project?"

inode0 inode0 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 15:58:59 UTC 2009

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff at ocjtech.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> 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.


More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list