Fedora Board Strategic Working Group

Following up on my post earlier this week
http://poelcat.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/the-fedora-board-so-far/ and
discussion at yesterday's board IRC meeting, I am proposing the
following "working group" meeting of the board to satisfactorily address
and close out the "What is Fedora" and "Target Audience" agenda items.


I'm proposing that the meeting be structured as described below. I'm
posting here to give visibility to our processes as a board and ask
which board members would like to participate.... please reply here if
you want to participate.


I've heard a few suggestions for holding these discussions in IRC.
Considering that board meetings can run 2 hours over the phone on this
topic I cannot imagine discussing these topics over IRC. We can
certainly address any questions or issues people want to raise at our
monthly IRC meetings.


== Timing ==
o I'm looking for feedback until Wednesday, January 13, 2010.
o Thursday to Sunday I will find out the best day and time to meet each week
o Weekly "working group" meetings will start the week of January 18, 2010

== Big Picture ==
o A committed group of board members that are passionate about
satisfactorily finishing the "What is Fedora" and "Target Audience"
agenda items.

o Provide status at regular board meetings
o Bring specific structured proposals to the regular board meeting
o All decisions by way of proposals are reviewed and voted on by all
board members at the regular meeting


== Framework ==
o Meet one day each week (outside of our regular meeting) for one hour
on the telephone
o Committed group of board members (this is not a drop-in/drop-out
meeting or come when you like)
--if you are passionate about this cause and believe it should be
moved forward

--committed to coming each week at the time we select
--actively participating in constructive dialog
o All meeting minutes will be sent to f-a-b and posted to the wiki
o Proposals and ideas for moving these topics forward will be discussed
--NO decisions will be made by this working group
o Once the full board has declared the "What is Fedora" and "Target
Audience" discussions closed this working group will be dissolved


== My Commitment ==
o Own all meeting set-up logistics
o Facilitate the meeting discussion and keep us on track
o Publish meeting minutes

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:39:36PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> Following up on my post earlier this week
> http://poelcat.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/the-fedora-board-so-far/ and
> discussion at yesterday's board IRC meeting, I am proposing the
> following "working group" meeting of the board to satisfactorily address
> and close out the "What is Fedora" and "Target Audience" agenda items.
>
> I'm proposing that the meeting be structured as described below. I'm
> posting here to give visibility to our processes as a board and ask
> which board members would like to participate.... please reply here if
> you want to participate.

I'm in.

While I'll re-iterate this in the discussions, I do think that we can
accommodate more than one "target audience" within the umbrella of
Fedora. Remixes can already define their own target audience, and can
make essentially any changes they desire to meet the needs of their
audience, but that's because they are generally explicitly not outputs
of the Fedora Project itself.

Spins (today) have the technical implementation detail that all their
packages must come from the one repository that is Everything, which
might limit what they can do if they have needs that conflict with the
"default spin" (i.e. Desktop). I think there can be ways devised (by
FESCo, Spins SIG, Rel-Eng, or other interested parties) to address
this, if it proves to be a problem in practice. I don't know if it
is - perhaps members of the Spins SIG can enlighten us.

-Matt


_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Matt Domsch <matt@domsch.com> wrote:

> Spins (today) have the technical implementation detail that all their
> packages must come from the one repository that is Everything, which
> might limit what they can do if they have needs that conflict with the
> "default spin" (i.e. Desktop). *I think there can be ways devised (by
> FESCo, Spins SIG, Rel-Eng, or other interested parties) to address
> this, if it proves to be a problem in practice. *I don't know if it
> is - perhaps members of the Spins SIG can enlighten us.

Everything consists of the entirety of software that is available in
Fedora, not restricted to one DE (maybe you're thinking the Fedora
directory here?). We do (and should) require that all software in a
branded spin come from the Everything repo. However, a remix is free
to mix and match from whatever sources it wants, but it cannot be
branded Fedora.
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:06:15AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Matt Domsch <matt@domsch.com> wrote:
>
> > Spins (today) have the technical implementation detail that all their
> > packages must come from the one repository that is Everything, which
> > might limit what they can do if they have needs that conflict with the
> > "default spin" (i.e. Desktop). *I think there can be ways devised (by
> > FESCo, Spins SIG, Rel-Eng, or other interested parties) to address
> > this, if it proves to be a problem in practice. *I don't know if it
> > is - perhaps members of the Spins SIG can enlighten us.
>
> Everything consists of the entirety of software that is available in
> Fedora, not restricted to one DE (maybe you're thinking the Fedora
> directory here?). We do (and should) require that all software in a
> branded spin come from the Everything repo. However, a remix is free
> to mix and match from whatever sources it wants, but it cannot be
> branded Fedora.

There are potential issues. For instance, when the Desktop spin wanted to
move to PolicyKit-1.0 and said that they'd veto a PoicyKit-compat package to
allow KDE applications to work. Or when zope was dropped from the
repositories because it wasn't ported to python2.5 and we didn't want to
have a python-2.4 compat package. There have also been times when certain
compilation options on one package were needed to allow other packages to
function but, because of the dependencies that the compilation options
brought in, that package didn't want to do so.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are potential issues. *For instance, when the Desktop spin wanted to
> move to PolicyKit-1.0 and said that they'd veto a PoicyKit-compat package to
> allow KDE applications to work. *Or when zope was dropped from the
> repositories because it wasn't ported to python2.5 and we didn't want to
> have a python-2.4 compat package. *There have also been times when certain
> compilation options on one package were needed to allow other packages to
> function but, because of the dependencies that the compilation options
> brought in, that package didn't want to do so.

Good points - but where and how do we draw the line between something
that's acceptable to be called Fedora and something that is not?
Currently, once the Board gives tm approval to the spin, that spin has
great latitude as to what to ship in future releases, within the
constraints of being from the Everything repo and in general keeping
with the nature of the spin.

Certainly we wouldn't want things from rpmfusion in a Fedora branded
spin due to the liability concerns, etc.
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, Matt Domsch wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:39:36PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> > Following up on my post earlier this week
> > http://poelcat.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/the-fedora-board-so-far/ and
> > discussion at yesterday's board IRC meeting, I am proposing the
> > following "working group" meeting of the board to satisfactorily address
> > and close out the "What is Fedora" and "Target Audience" agenda items.
> >
> > I'm proposing that the meeting be structured as described below. I'm
> > posting here to give visibility to our processes as a board and ask
> > which board members would like to participate.... please reply here if
> > you want to participate.
>
> I'm in.
>

Me too.

-Mike
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:


On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:06:15AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Matt Domsch <matt@domsch.com> wrote:


Spins (today) have the technical implementation detail that all their
packages must come from the one repository that is Everything, which
might limit what they can do if they have needs that conflict with the
"default spin" (i.e. Desktop). *I think there can be ways devised (by
FESCo, Spins SIG, Rel-Eng, or other interested parties) to address
this, if it proves to be a problem in practice. *I don't know if it
is - perhaps members of the Spins SIG can enlighten us.


Everything consists of the entirety of software that is available in
Fedora, not restricted to one DE (maybe you're thinking the Fedora
directory here?). We do (and should) require that all software in a
branded spin come from the Everything repo. However, a remix is free
to mix and match from whatever sources it wants, but it cannot be
branded Fedora.


There are potential issues. For instance, when the Desktop spin wanted to
move to PolicyKit-1.0 and said that they'd veto a PoicyKit-compat package to
allow KDE applications to work. Or when zope was dropped from the
repositories because it wasn't ported to python2.5 and we didn't want to
have a python-2.4 compat package. There have also been times when certain
compilation options on one package were needed to allow other packages to
function but, because of the dependencies that the compilation options
brought in, that package didn't want to do so.



I'd like to be involved in these discussions, too.

But I think Toshio's point is important, there are lots of decisions that
have been made which, ultimately, preclude certain other behavior w/o
rebuilding/reconfiguring significantly.


-sv
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:39:49AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are potential issues. *For instance, when the Desktop spin wanted to
> > move to PolicyKit-1.0 and said that they'd veto a PoicyKit-compat package to
> > allow KDE applications to work. *Or when zope was dropped from the
> > repositories because it wasn't ported to python2.5 and we didn't want to
> > have a python-2.4 compat package. *There have also been times when certain
> > compilation options on one package were needed to allow other packages to
> > function but, because of the dependencies that the compilation options
> > brought in, that package didn't want to do so.
>
> Good points - but where and how do we draw the line between something
> that's acceptable to be called Fedora and something that is not?
>
I like the line of "in the Fedora repositories" but I'm warning that
sometimes we keep things (that are free software and legal to ship in the
US) outside of the Fedora repositories and that limits what a spin can do.
When we discuss a target audience we have to be careful that we continue to
make it possible for other audiences to be addressed by having ways to
mediate these differences. Deciding that the default spin is more important
than any other spin and that the default target audience is more important
than any other audience is dangerous as we start making decisions based on
the importance to the target audience instead of on how the decision enables
more contributors to do the work that's important to them.

I see things a bit differently from poelcat in that I think that having the
Board define a target audience for Fedora is not beneficial. In fact, it is
detrimental to Fedora. *Individual spins* (including the default spin)
would definitely benefit from targeting specific audiences but the Board and
FESCo's responsibility is to help all the sub-communities that make up
Fedora be able to derive usable products from the Fedora Package Collection.
This means mediating disputes, drumming up support for switching base parts
of our architecture (like moving from SysVinit to upstart), and defining the
absolute limitations that the Fedora Project will follow (free software,
legality within the US).

If there's any audience that should be targeted for Fedora, the Project, it
is the people who want to create a free software operating system. Those
people can then define audiences that their individual spins and SIGs will
target. The Board can mediate disputes because they're tasked with
providing an environment in which people can build the free software
operating systems that are right for them.

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:39:49AM -0500, Jon Stanley wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There are potential issues. *For instance, when the Desktop spin wanted to
> > > move to PolicyKit-1.0 and said that they'd veto a PoicyKit-compat package to
> > > allow KDE applications to work. *Or when zope was dropped from the
> > > repositories because it wasn't ported to python2.5 and we didn't want to
> > > have a python-2.4 compat package. *There have also been times when certain
> > > compilation options on one package were needed to allow other packages to
> > > function but, because of the dependencies that the compilation options
> > > brought in, that package didn't want to do so.
> >
> > Good points - but where and how do we draw the line between something
> > that's acceptable to be called Fedora and something that is not?
> >
> I like the line of "in the Fedora repositories" but I'm warning that
> sometimes we keep things (that are free software and legal to ship in the
> US) outside of the Fedora repositories and that limits what a spin can do.
> When we discuss a target audience we have to be careful that we continue to
> make it possible for other audiences to be addressed by having ways to
> mediate these differences. Deciding that the default spin is more important
> than any other spin and that the default target audience is more important
> than any other audience is dangerous as we start making decisions based on
> the importance to the target audience instead of on how the decision enables
> more contributors to do the work that's important to them.
>
> I see things a bit differently from poelcat in that I think that having the
> Board define a target audience for Fedora is not beneficial. In fact, it is
> detrimental to Fedora.

Pretend you're on the desktop team. You've got lots of people working
with you and are going to spend the next 3 years on something. Is it
going to be features or usability? Sure it's a mix of both, but when an
issue comes up that that will either sacrifice usability for a feature,
or will sacrifice a feature for usability what do you do? You can't
answer that question without a target audience or what is Fedora (the OS).

At the moment though we seem to be sacrificing usability for features,
that may be right or it may be wrong for Fedora. I have no idea and
neither can anyone else without some focus.

*Individual spins* (including the default spin)
> would definitely benefit from targeting specific audiences but the Board and
> FESCo's responsibility is to help all the sub-communities that make up
> Fedora be able to derive usable products from the Fedora Package Collection.
> This means mediating disputes, drumming up support for switching base parts
> of our architecture (like moving from SysVinit to upstart), and defining the
> absolute limitations that the Fedora Project will follow (free software,
> legality within the US).
>

The funny thing here is I think spins are a detriment to Fedora. We
pretend they're useful and interesting but they're really not. If we
describe them as "a subset of what is in the Everything/ directory" which
is what they are, they're not at all compelling.

> If there's any audience that should be targeted for Fedora, the Project, it
> is the people who want to create a free software operating system. Those
> people can then define audiences that their individual spins and SIGs will
> target. The Board can mediate disputes because they're tasked with
> providing an environment in which people can build the free software
> operating systems that are right for them.
>

I agree with this, I don't think there's any doubt the project is healthy
and thriving. It's our OS I'm worried about.

-Mike______________________________________________ _
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:39 PM, John Poelstra <poelstra@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've heard a few suggestions for holding these discussions in IRC.
> Considering that board meetings can run 2 hours over the phone on this topic
> I cannot imagine discussing these topics over IRC. *We can certainly address
> any questions or issues people want to raise at our monthly IRC meetings.
>
> == Timing ==
> o I'm looking for feedback until Wednesday, January 13, 2010.
> o Thursday to Sunday I will find out the best day and time to meet each week
> o Weekly "working group" meetings will start the week of January 18, 2010
>
> == Big Picture ==
> o A committed group of board members that are passionate about
> satisfactorily finishing the "What is Fedora" and "Target Audience" agenda
> items.
> o Provide status at regular board meetings
> o Bring specific structured proposals to the regular board meeting
> o All decisions by way of proposals are reviewed and voted on by all board
> members at the regular meeting
>
> == Framework ==
> o Meet one day each week (outside of our regular meeting) for one hour on
> the telephone

If we're thinking of this as producing something, why not try to say
create a wiki page as we work? Or proposed modifications to existing
definitions like the first few paragraphs of fedoraproject.org.

As far as scheduling goes I'm flexible, though ideally not Thursday.
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board