FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-31-2008, 03:34 PM
"Karsten 'quaid' Wade"
 
Default redefining SIGs (old and new)

Jef has some hot ideas here so I'm OK with him co-opting the SIG
usage/namespace.

However, it has had a historical meaning in Fedora and what do we
replace that with?

SIG has meant, a group starting around something that wasn't ready to go
through the formal project process:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects

"A SIG earns official project status through successful accomplishment
of objectives that warrant more prominence in the Fedora Project. If
contributors request it, the parent project or the Fedora Project Board
will evaluate the SIG's progress reports and make a determination of
readiness for this stage. At this point, it may be branded with the
Fedora name and promoted to the full status of a Fedora project. It can
join the ranks of the most valuable initiatives currently leading the
Fedora Project."

What do we call that incubation stage?

I ask because we just voted yesterday to form the Marketing SIG, but Jef
is reasonably arguing that Docs, Marketing, etc. are support services in
his new SIG model. OTOH, I'm sure that if, at this stage, we had to
follow all the project definition rules to get an official "Marketing
Project", we'd bury half the interested people and lose a lot of
momentum.

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-31-2008, 03:43 PM
Greg DeKoenigsberg
 
Default redefining SIGs (old and new)

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:


Jef has some hot ideas here so I'm OK with him co-opting the SIG
usage/namespace.

However, it has had a historical meaning in Fedora and what do we
replace that with?

SIG has meant, a group starting around something that wasn't ready to go
through the formal project process:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects

"A SIG earns official project status through successful accomplishment
of objectives that warrant more prominence in the Fedora Project. If
contributors request it, the parent project or the Fedora Project Board
will evaluate the SIG's progress reports and make a determination of
readiness for this stage. At this point, it may be branded with the
Fedora name and promoted to the full status of a Fedora project. It can
join the ranks of the most valuable initiatives currently leading the
Fedora Project."

What do we call that incubation stage?

I ask because we just voted yesterday to form the Marketing SIG, but Jef
is reasonably arguing that Docs, Marketing, etc. are support services in
his new SIG model. OTOH, I'm sure that if, at this stage, we had to
follow all the project definition rules to get an official "Marketing
Project", we'd bury half the interested people and lose a lot of
momentum.


Why?

Marketing has a ton of tasks and some leadership. Why can't we set up
governance for the Marketing group? What hurdles are there to clear?


--g

--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-31-2008, 04:30 PM
 
Default redefining SIGs (old and new)

have you seen my rainbow chart?
http://jspaleta.fedorapeople.org/role-based-sigs/sig-teams.png
there's an svg in there as well if you want to do your own strawman.

Let me boil it down for you...
I want to organize role based teamwork around...packages. End of the
day, as a project packages are a clear deliverable and focus. Other
things while very important are support services to make us more
effective at deliverying packages. So I want to organize work that
makes all the crap that needs to get done in relationship to a chunk
of the package repository. I want a role based team model. All of it
from front line user help, to documenting features, to triage, to
maintaining and developing.

For each role on such a team, there is a support group that handles
the policy around the tasks associated with that area. So triage
would have a support group, made up of triagers from each package
oriented SIG as well as floating experts. That support group deals
with triage policy, tools, and recruitment and training for new
triagers to fill roles in SIGs that need help in that area. And so on
and so on for different roles

There will of course need to be other support groups that don't have a
definable role in a packaging SIG...yet. Marketting for example, very
not package oriented yet. But as it develops it could very well end up
with some packagespace related tasking, similar to beat writing for
the release notes. The point is to put a little more structure into
how we organize people. My proposal would have two basic structures.
Role based packaging SIGs that do all the tasks associated with chunk
of packagespace, and support groups organized around a role area.

In my strawman rainbow chart of love, those support groups are called
interface specialists... because they are the interfaces where
different packaging SIGs meet.
Right now our Marketing and Documentation SIGs are good examples of
what interface groups are. And I'm not looking to experiment with
role assignments in these support groups. I am looking to affect
change in how packaging SIGs are put together.

right now the only team structure we have is a SIG, so i've reused the
name. I frankly don't care what its called. I'm just trying to
organize things differently so we can have role oriented support
groups, in the hopes of driving recruitment and specialized training
to help packaging SIGs become more effective at what they do. We need
documenters and triagers and what not to be working directly with
maintainers. We don't really want maintainers to train up those
people.

<sing along to the Different Strokes TV theme>
it takes... different roles..different roles..different roles to move the bits
</sing along>

-jef"Would it be wrong to delibrately create a hardware failure
situation, such that I could fly back out here to King Salmon.. in the
summer...and actually enjoy the trip?"spaleta

On 1/31/08, Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
>
> > Jef has some hot ideas here so I'm OK with him co-opting the SIG
> > usage/namespace.
> >
> > However, it has had a historical meaning in Fedora and what do we
> > replace that with?
> >
> > SIG has meant, a group starting around something that wasn't ready to go
> > through the formal project process:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DefiningProjects
> >
> > "A SIG earns official project status through successful accomplishment
> > of objectives that warrant more prominence in the Fedora Project. If
> > contributors request it, the parent project or the Fedora Project Board
> > will evaluate the SIG's progress reports and make a determination of
> > readiness for this stage. At this point, it may be branded with the
> > Fedora name and promoted to the full status of a Fedora project. It can
> > join the ranks of the most valuable initiatives currently leading the
> > Fedora Project."
> >
> > What do we call that incubation stage?
> >
> > I ask because we just voted yesterday to form the Marketing SIG, but Jef
> > is reasonably arguing that Docs, Marketing, etc. are support services in
> > his new SIG model. OTOH, I'm sure that if, at this stage, we had to
> > follow all the project definition rules to get an official "Marketing
> > Project", we'd bury half the interested people and lose a lot of
> > momentum.
>
> Why?
>
> Marketing has a ton of tasks and some leadership. Why can't we set up
> governance for the Marketing group? What hurdles are there to clear?
>
> --g
>
> --
> Greg DeKoenigsberg
> Community Development Manager
> Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
> "To whomsoever much hath been given...
> ...from him much shall be asked"
>
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
>

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-31-2008, 05:23 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default redefining SIGs (old and new)

On Jan 31, 2008 8:30 AM, <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> right now the only team structure we have is a SIG, so i've reused the
> name. I frankly don't care what its called.

And with that being said... perhaps I've abused the SIG term in my
strawman too severely.
I should be punished. Perhaps my strawman should lay it out like this.

Leave the SIG definition as is, and (re)organize a role based
Packaging SIG. In such a strawman, groups focusing on packaging such
as the Astronomy, Games, and KDE SIGs would be reformulated under the
new role based thing (if they wanted to try out my idea). I'm at a
loss as to what to call the reformulated groups..confederacy of allied
packagers (CAPs)?

They would define what part of the packagespace they take stewardship
over (overlap is fine), and define roles internally for all tasking
related to that space. In parallel other existing SIGs like
Documentation would choose to prep training and build policy meant to
be used to support a role, in each area of the packagespace.

So in this strawman, let's say the current KDE SIG decided to play
ball with my idea. They would reformulate as a CAP under the Packaging
SIG, and would identify a set of task based roles on their team, among
them a documenter role. Documentation SIG, would find a way to create
training aimed at a group of new "documenters" to help them get
started doing documentation tasks for the CAP they are assigned to.
Training on things like release note beat writing, how to work with
the doctools, maybe its information on how to identify and track
"feature" hotness. Documentation things that the package maintainers
and developers who drive KDE packages forward aren't going to be
experts at.

I then lead a recruitment drive to get interested people into a
documenter training session. At the end of that training period
(however its laid out), some of the people will wander away, and some
of them will take an assignment. Once trained the new documenters
are assigned to a CAP and are integrated into that groups work. We
assess how people feel about the role they are in each release cycle.
And perhaps make a large recruitment push for a different role each
release cycle.

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-31-2008, 05:37 PM
"Yaakov Nemoy"
 
Default redefining SIGs (old and new)

On Jan 31, 2008 11:34 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade <kwade@redhat.com> wrote:
> "A SIG earns official project status through successful accomplishment
> of objectives that warrant more prominence in the Fedora Project. If
> contributors request it, the parent project or the Fedora Project Board
> will evaluate the SIG's progress reports and make a determination of
> readiness for this stage. At this point, it may be branded with the
> Fedora name and promoted to the full status of a Fedora project. It can
> join the ranks of the most valuable initiatives currently leading the
> Fedora Project."
>
> What do we call that incubation stage?

Incubated you say? How about an EGG. An Evolving Growth Group.

-Yaakov

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 01-31-2008, 05:43 PM
Greg DeKoenigsberg
 
Default redefining SIGs (old and new)

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:


On Jan 31, 2008 11:34 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade <kwade@redhat.com> wrote:

"A SIG earns official project status through successful accomplishment
of objectives that warrant more prominence in the Fedora Project. If
contributors request it, the parent project or the Fedora Project Board
will evaluate the SIG's progress reports and make a determination of
readiness for this stage. At this point, it may be branded with the
Fedora name and promoted to the full status of a Fedora project. It can
join the ranks of the most valuable initiatives currently leading the
Fedora Project."

What do we call that incubation stage?


Incubated you say? How about an EGG. An Evolving Growth Group.


This is clever, and would be great if SIGs didn't exist -- but they do.

Again, I prefer simplicity.

"SIG" = a loose group of folks trying to solve a problem.

"Project" = a formalized team of people who are accountable to The Board
for solving a particular problem.


Seems to me that the "Packaging SIG" is really a "Packaging Project" by
these guidelines.


--g

--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 02-01-2008, 07:57 PM
"Karsten 'quaid' Wade"
 
Default redefining SIGs (old and new)

On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 13:43 -0500, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:

> Again, I prefer simplicity.
>
> "SIG" = a loose group of folks trying to solve a problem.
>
> "Project" = a formalized team of people who are accountable to The Board
> for solving a particular problem.

Right. I'm not pushing for creating new terms or (really) redefining
usage. We need to look at what people are saying and adjust to fit
that, not the other way around.

We have a fair amount of understanding in the Project about those
meanings, but they are still somewhat confusing. Some things are called
one when they are really the other.

When it comes to Jef's scheme, I think a different term is called for.
It *could* (and might best be) a usage of an already existing term. For
example:

Documentation, Marketing, Packaging, etc. == Core Projects
KDE, Virtualization, Electronics, HAM Radio == Special Projects

That is, we continue to use the term "Project" to refer to something
more organized and accountable (for providing a service (Core) or a
feature (Special).

Anyway, that is just an off-the-top-o'-the-head idea.

Jef -- you do understand that a cool moniker is not just for the sake of
itself, right? We're talking about making changes (!) and we need to be
wily in all ways, including co-opting existing memes.

> Seems to me that the "Packaging SIG" is really a "Packaging Project" by
> these guidelines.

Noticed that, eh?

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 02-01-2008, 08:27 PM
"Karsten 'quaid' Wade"
 
Default redefining SIGs (old and new)

On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 11:43 -0500, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:

> Why?
>
> Marketing has a ton of tasks and some leadership. Why can't we set
> up
> governance for the Marketing group? What hurdles are there to clear?

Well, from the standpoint that "Marketing has been an informal SIG for a
long time, and is now formalizing," why not?

Simplest form is to just make an unwieldy steering committee of at least
seven of the willing and just push on, then hold elections and such
after F9 release. Looks kind of like we're getting that by default.
I'll add it to an agenda someday soon, if no one beats me to it.

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 02-03-2008, 05:16 PM
"Russell Harrison"
 
Default redefining SIGs (old and new)

On Jan 31, 2008 12:30 PM, <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my strawman rainbow chart of love, ...

I am totally quoting that as much as possible.

Russell

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org