[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: thoughts on LWN "how many Fedora users are there"

Hello Max

It is with some irony that I follow the link to the LWN article below only to
find that it is _closed_ to (unpaid) non-subscribers.  I was about to draw
attention to this irony with a short and curt message to the LWN editor, but
thought it better I somehow access the material in discussion first - can you
provide a link to an _open_ copy of the article please?  Perhaps a follow-up on
announce list?


Max Spevack wrote:
> My fellow Fedorans,
> I have some thoughts on the LWN article/discussion that was taken from a
> few of the recent postings to fedora-advisory-board.
> Rather than send the same message to a bunch of different Fedora lists,
> I'm just going to spit it out here on fedora-announce-list.
> http://lwn.net/Articles/203694/
> All of the "interesting" threads about Fedora that we've seen on LWN
> tend to begin with one of the LWN editors browsing the Fedora Advisory
> Board archives and commenting on some of the discussions that take place
> there.
> It's not like that's an accident.
> When we set up that mailing list, we said two very specific things:
> 1) This is *the list* where the controversial conversations about Fedora
> will take place.
> 2) This list is completely open.  Anyone can read it.  Anyone can post
> to it. And we hope that people will!
> I'm glad people are reading it.  I'm glad people *care* enough about the
> issues that are discussed on it to write a large number of comments to a
> story about Fedora.
> So the *particulars* of this thread about Fedora metrics to me are *less
> important* than the fact that these conversations -- in their raw,
> unedited form -- are being had 100% in the open.  And that they are
> being had in very large part by people who do not work for Red Hat.  And
> that people who don't work for Red Hat are making decisions about Fedora
> policy that are then implemented.
> That was the goal of the Fedora Board, and the Fedora Advisory Board.
> And it's working.
> Seth Vidal and Dave Jones summed it up well in the comments on LWN.
> There was an idea.  That idea was discussed in public.  It received
> criticism, others were proposed, options were weighed, and a decision
> was made. That's how it's supposed to work.
> So what's the purpose of taking parts of that conversation and sticking
> them on a news site like LWN?
> Is it to:
> A) be critical of the *initial idea* and made Fedora look foolish for
> having thought of it to begin with?
> B) be a case study of "the lifecycle of a controversial decision in
> Fedora"?
> C) *incorrectly* imply that Red Hat might want to cut funding for Fedora?
> D) demonstrate a problem with Fedora (lack of strong metrics) and show
> some of the conversations around that problem?
> The Fedora Advisory Board list is made up of all sorts of different
> types -- engineers both inside and outside of Red Hat, lawyers,
> marketing experts, folks who are considering business issues, folks who
> are considering technical issues, etc.
> When the ideas of one group come up against the scrutiny of other
> groups, it isn't always pretty.
> But the *end result* is what matters.  And since we inaugurated the
> Fedora Board in April, I think the Fedora Project has a solid track
> record of doing the "right thing" in the end.
> The fact that the rest of the process is transparent should, in my
> opinion, be held up as a good thing.
> It is a side effect that looking into that process can occasionally lead
> to a fun comment/flame thread.  Laugh at us if you want to.  Flame us if
> you want to.  We're still going to talk about it in the open, because as
> an organization the Fedora Project is committed to that transparency,
> even when it isn't necessarily the *easiest* choice.
> So please, judge us based on what we actually DO, not just what we talk
> about and then throw away.
> --Max
> opposite, in fact.  But I can't just walk into the magic room full of
> gold and take a pile of it.  There has to be justification.  There has
> to be a Plan. It has to be treated like Serious Business(TM).  :-)  And
> I think that any product (free or otherwise) that can't at least give a
> ballpark guesstimate of how many people use it is going to have some
> problems being taken seriously.

Morgan Read

fedora: Freedom Forever!

"By choosing not to ship any proprietary or binary drivers, Fedora does differ
from other distributions. ..."
Quote: Max Spevik

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]