Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Advisory Board (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-advisory-board/)
-   -   Follow up on Robyn proposal (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-advisory-board/713164-follow-up-robyn-proposal.html)

Michael Scherer 04-25-2013 10:53 PM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
Hi,

as proposed by Robyn and discussed in the meeting, we have 1 week to
refine and discuss the questions ( not the answers, just questions )
that we plan to use to try to define the strategy ( brainstorming is for
later, once we have properly defined the problem ).

There is 5 questions, but not all are perfectly fitted to our uses
( because we are not exactly a company with a top down approach :) ),
hence the need for refinement and adaptation.

Please answer inline, as this will be easier to summarize, I have added
the relevant notes/comments from meeting along the questions ( and stuff
that looked like 'answer' were omitted on purpose, we discuss the
questions for now )



#1 What is our larger goal?
robyn> (Mission statement, vision statement)


#2 Where will we play?

robyn> (Basically - what is our target audience)

mhayden> I still feel like we need to define the focus of our outputs/deliverables a bit
-- desktop or server (or both equally) ?


#3 How do we win ?

robyn> perhaps this could better be stated as "what are we delivering"

misc> "how do we define our success"

mhayden> i think we define a win not by "market penetration" but by how
often fedora deliverables are used to build something great
which could be something as simple as one person's
desktop or it could be a small part of some giant product/movement.
For example, fedora is the best platform i've found for
xen today -- i'd say that's something the community excels at (on a specific deliverable)


#4 What capabilities do we need in place?

robyn> This is - in some places, technical - do we have the tools to build what we deliver,
technical capabilities and other bits are things like marketing, how do we reach these people, etc.

#5 Management systems needed?

robyn> This goes towards what we need to do on an ongoing basis to be
successful - how do we ensure we can have a steady flow of new
contributors, how do we measure success (so we feel successful!), etc


So far, #1 is quite uncontroversial as a question, while the others are
more or less refinable.

I personally would propose for :

#3 How do we measure success

#4 what contributors do we need to attract, and what systems do we need
to setup ?

#5 what governance structure would foster our objectives ?

( and no idea for 2 )

So, if you have any idea or want to complete that, feel free to express
yourself. Again, please just focus on the questions, not trying to
answer to question ( or only if that permit to see the questions doesn't
make sense for us )
--
Michael Scherer


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

inode0 04-27-2013 04:32 PM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Michael Scherer <misc@zarb.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as proposed by Robyn and discussed in the meeting, we have 1 week to
> refine and discuss the questions ( not the answers, just questions )
> that we plan to use to try to define the strategy ( brainstorming is for
> later, once we have properly defined the problem ).

inode0 impatiently waits for later.

> There is 5 questions, but not all are perfectly fitted to our uses
> ( because we are not exactly a company with a top down approach :) ),
> hence the need for refinement and adaptation.

We don't know which questions make sense until we have an idea of what
we are trying to do. I think it is futile to try refining the
questions before we begin answering the fundamental question. Once we
know where we would like to go the other questions will fall into
place as either those Robyn proposed or as refinements of them or as
additions to them that make sense in a concrete context. These give an
adequate framework to get started as far as I'm concerned.

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

Michael Scherer 04-27-2013 09:59 PM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
Le samedi 27 avril 2013 à 11:32 -0500, inode0 a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Michael Scherer <misc@zarb.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > as proposed by Robyn and discussed in the meeting, we have 1 week to
> > refine and discuss the questions ( not the answers, just questions )
> > that we plan to use to try to define the strategy ( brainstorming is for
> > later, once we have properly defined the problem ).
>
> inode0 impatiently waits for later.
>
> > There is 5 questions, but not all are perfectly fitted to our uses
> > ( because we are not exactly a company with a top down approach :) ),
> > hence the need for refinement and adaptation.
>
> We don't know which questions make sense until we have an idea of what
> we are trying to do.

I think we all kinda agreed that the current userbase statement could be
changed, and in turn, this would have a impact on what Fedora as
community produce.

So now we know we have something to change ( even if, for now, we do not
know where, how, when, we just know we may need to change something ),
we need to know how to go there. For that, we need to define a strategy,
and to define a strategy, we have to express it.

And to express it, the proposal is to express it as answers to the 5
questions.

> I think it is futile to try refining the
> questions before we begin answering the fundamental question. Once we
> know where we would like to go the other questions will fall into
> place as either those Robyn proposed or as refinements of them or as
> additions to them that make sense in a concrete context. These give an
> adequate framework to get started as far as I'm concerned.

Fair enough, so let's take a silly example.

So, let's say ( as a example ) that we want Fedora to be the perfect
distribution for french atmospheric scientists that want to use cloud
computing ( like users of my flatmate ). Due to me being a jedi and
using the Force, I convinced the board that's the way to go.

So now we know where we want to go, do you think that, for the Fedora
community, the 5 questions will permit to define more precisely the
strategy or not, and permit to express more clearly how we go there.

If the answer is "yes", then ok, we keep the questions. If the answer is
"no, the questions are not adapted to us", then how can we adapt them
( add more questions, remove some questions, change them ? ).

And if the answer is "the question are good for this example, but may
not work for another example", then maybe, but could you be more precise
on that another example ?

--
Michael Scherer


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

inode0 04-27-2013 10:48 PM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Michael Scherer <misc@zarb.org> wrote:
> Le samedi 27 avril 2013 à 11:32 -0500, inode0 a écrit :
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Michael Scherer <misc@zarb.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > as proposed by Robyn and discussed in the meeting, we have 1 week to
>> > refine and discuss the questions ( not the answers, just questions )
>> > that we plan to use to try to define the strategy ( brainstorming is for
>> > later, once we have properly defined the problem ).
>>
>> inode0 impatiently waits for later.
>>
>> > There is 5 questions, but not all are perfectly fitted to our uses
>> > ( because we are not exactly a company with a top down approach :) ),
>> > hence the need for refinement and adaptation.
>>
>> We don't know which questions make sense until we have an idea of what
>> we are trying to do.
>
> I think we all kinda agreed that the current userbase statement could be
> changed, and in turn, this would have a impact on what Fedora as
> community produce.

We don't even agree on what the current definition of user base means.
Does it apply to the default offering only or to the entire Fedora
Project?

> So now we know we have something to change ( even if, for now, we do not
> know where, how, when, we just know we may need to change something ),
> we need to know how to go there. For that, we need to define a strategy,
> and to define a strategy, we have to express it.
>
> And to express it, the proposal is to express it as answers to the 5
> questions.
>
>> I think it is futile to try refining the
>> questions before we begin answering the fundamental question. Once we
>> know where we would like to go the other questions will fall into
>> place as either those Robyn proposed or as refinements of them or as
>> additions to them that make sense in a concrete context. These give an
>> adequate framework to get started as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Fair enough, so let's take a silly example.
>
> So, let's say ( as a example ) that we want Fedora to be the perfect
> distribution for french atmospheric scientists that want to use cloud
> computing ( like users of my flatmate ). Due to me being a jedi and
> using the Force, I convinced the board that's the way to go.
>
> So now we know where we want to go, do you think that, for the Fedora
> community, the 5 questions will permit to define more precisely the
> strategy or not, and permit to express more clearly how we go there.

This is part of what I am afraid of here. We will box ourselves into a
corner where if we can't centrally decide what product(s) Fedora
should produce, how it should produce them, who we need to get to
produce them, and how we pat ourselves on the back by concluding we
have quantifiable proof that we succeeded then we fail.

I'm honestly unlikely to be persuaded to support any strategy
constrained this way. I want to do what is best for the project and
the community (both the one that exists now and the one that will
exist years from now) regardless of whether we can answer some set of
questions that we selected in a vacuum.

> If the answer is "yes", then ok, we keep the questions. If the answer is
> "no, the questions are not adapted to us", then how can we adapt them
> ( add more questions, remove some questions, change them ? ).
>
> And if the answer is "the question are good for this example, but may
> not work for another example", then maybe, but could you be more precise
> on that another example ?

This is really my point. One set of questions might be perfect for one
strategic plan and complete nonsense for another. Some general
questions are fine to think about as we begin but I think they likely
will need to be revisited once there are plans on the table anyway.
Perhaps after this exercise we could each propose a vision of what we
think a healthy Fedora Project might look like in the future.

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

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" 04-28-2013 02:58 AM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
On 04/27/2013 10:48 PM, inode0 wrote:



On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Michael Scherer <misc@zarb.org> wrote:


Le samedi 27 avril 2013 à 11:32 -0500, inode0 a écrit :


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Michael Scherer <misc@zarb.org> wrote:


Hi,

as proposed by Robyn and discussed in the meeting, we have 1 week to
refine and discuss the questions ( not the answers, just questions )
that we plan to use to try to define the strategy ( brainstorming is for
later, once we have properly defined the problem ).



inode0 impatiently waits for later.



There is 5 questions, but not all are perfectly fitted to our uses
( because we are not exactly a company with a top down approach :) ),
hence the need for refinement and adaptation.



We don't know which questions make sense until we have an idea of what
we are trying to do.



I think we all kinda agreed that the current userbase statement could be
changed, and in turn, this would have a impact on what Fedora as
community produce.



We don't even agree on what the current definition of user base means.
Does it apply to the default offering only or to the entire Fedora
Project?



So now we know we have something to change ( even if, for now, we do not
know where, how, when, we just know we may need to change something ),
we need to know how to go there. For that, we need to define a strategy,
and to define a strategy, we have to express it.

And to express it, the proposal is to express it as answers to the 5
questions.



I think it is futile to try refining the
questions before we begin answering the fundamental question. Once we
know where we would like to go the other questions will fall into
place as either those Robyn proposed or as refinements of them or as
additions to them that make sense in a concrete context. These give an
adequate framework to get started as far as I'm concerned.



Fair enough, so let's take a silly example.

So, let's say ( as a example ) that we want Fedora to be the perfect
distribution for french atmospheric scientists that want to use cloud
computing ( like users of my flatmate ). Due to me being a jedi and
using the Force, I convinced the board that's the way to go.

So now we know where we want to go, do you think that, for the Fedora
community, the 5 questions will permit to define more precisely the
strategy or not, and permit to express more clearly how we go there.



This is part of what I am afraid of here. We will box ourselves into a
corner where if we can't centrally decide what product(s) Fedora
should produce, how it should produce them, who we need to get to
produce them, and how we pat ourselves on the back by concluding we
have quantifiable proof that we succeeded then we fail.

I'm honestly unlikely to be persuaded to support any strategy
constrained this way. I want to do what is best for the project and
the community (both the one that exists now and the one that will
exist years from now) regardless of whether we can answer some set of
questions that we selected in a vacuum.



If the answer is "yes", then ok, we keep the questions. If the answer is
"no, the questions are not adapted to us", then how can we adapt them
( add more questions, remove some questions, change them ? ).

And if the answer is "the question are good for this example, but may
not work for another example", then maybe, but could you be more precise
on that another example ?



This is really my point. One set of questions might be perfect for one
strategic plan and complete nonsense for another. Some general
questions are fine to think about as we begin but I think they likely
will need to be revisited once there are plans on the table anyway.
Perhaps after this exercise we could each propose a vision of what we
think a healthy Fedora Project might look like in the future.




Sorry to say but I have a hard time seeing that the board can come
up with a vision on what it thinks a healthy project should look in
the future ( even if it was possible that view would be subjected to
the board members of that time )



Again and again the board has tried to label such a diverse
community we are, with a single label and again and again it has
failed thus i asked when will the board learn that the sub-community
set's their own direction,own target audience and it's own strategy
and are fully responsible for their own "health".



For us to succeed as an project we have to provide them ( the
sub-communities ) with the platform,the tools ( like measuring
sub-communities even down to individual package activity which
should indicate their "health" ) and the freedom to do so instead of
keeping users and contributors boxed in a "default" and the board at
that time tunnel vision...



JBG



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

inode0 04-28-2013 03:32 AM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 9:58 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
<johannbg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/27/2013 10:48 PM, inode0 wrote:
> This is really my point. One set of questions might be perfect for one
> strategic plan and complete nonsense for another. Some general
> questions are fine to think about as we begin but I think they likely
> will need to be revisited once there are plans on the table anyway.
> Perhaps after this exercise we could each propose a vision of what we
> think a healthy Fedora Project might look like in the future.
>
>
> Sorry to say but I have a hard time seeing that the board can come up with a
> vision on what it thinks a healthy project should look in the future ( even
> if it was possible that view would be subjected to the board members of that
> time )

Any view of the Board is subject to the Board members at the time. It
can only change and potentially improve by periodic reconsideration.

> Again and again the board has tried to label such a diverse community we
> are, with a single label and again and again it has failed thus i asked when
> will the board learn that the sub-community set's their own direction,own
> target audience and it's own strategy and are fully responsible for their
> own "health".
>
> For us to succeed as an project we have to provide them ( the
> sub-communities ) with the platform,the tools ( like measuring
> sub-communities even down to individual package activity which should
> indicate their "health" ) and the freedom to do so instead of keeping users
> and contributors boxed in a "default" and the board at that time tunnel
> vision...

And you just described one vision of a healthy Fedora Project which
will never be the position of the Board without reconsideration of the
existing position.

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

Stephen John Smoogen 04-29-2013 02:26 AM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
On 27 April 2013 16:48, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Michael Scherer <misc@zarb.org> wrote:

> Le samedi 27 avril 2013 à 11:32 -0500, inode0 a écrit :

>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Michael Scherer <misc@zarb.org> wrote:

>> > Hi,

>> >

>> > as proposed by Robyn and discussed in the meeting, we have 1 week to

>> > refine and discuss the questions ( not the answers, just questions )

>> > that we plan to use to try to define the strategy ( brainstorming is for

>> > later, once we have properly defined the problem ).

>>

>> inode0 impatiently waits for later.

>>

>> > There is 5 questions, but not all are perfectly fitted to our uses

>> > ( because we are not exactly a company with a top down approach :) ),

>> > hence the need for refinement and adaptation.

>>

>> We don't know which questions make sense until we have an idea of what

>> we are trying to do.

>

> I think we all kinda agreed that the current userbase statement could be

> changed, and in turn, this would have a impact on what Fedora as

> community produce.



We don't even agree on what the current definition of user base means.

Does it apply to the default offering only or to the entire Fedora

Project?



Of course not. As soon as anyone comes up with even a strawman proposal everyone and their uncle come out of the woods yelling about how that doesn't describe them (even if it was word for word what they said they thought it would describe them 2 minutes earlier). In the end, I can only say that our vocal user base are a bunch of people who spend more time arguing both sides of an argument and making up at least 2 more sides just to make sure everything is covered. As such I think our present OS and its billion offerings matches what they want and don't want at the same time.

But what about our unvocal base? How do we find who are left of them and what they want.*
--
Stephen J Smoogen.



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

Eric Christensen 04-29-2013 01:24 PM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Perhaps my understanding of the entire discussion (or at least the original discussion) is off but I feel that Fedora should be 'minimal installation' and then have the individual SIGs (or projects, depending on your definition) establish the rest. In that way Fedora really can be everything to everyone and success of anyone's idea is based on their ability to do work or find others to help them do that work.

And when I say 'minimal' I mean the least amount of packages necessary to make Fedora boot. Everything else is gravy. We know that there are people that run Fedora on servers and don't need LibreOffice or even a GUI. That's fine. The Server SIG can build up what they need to make an excellent Fedora server OS and release a spin of that every release cycle. Same goes for desktop environments that may not need httpd on their box at install.

Really we don't *need* to spend so much time on "what is our user base" simply because our user base is anyone that wants a highly flexible, open environment for getting stuff done. At no time do we have a bouncer at the door making sure that each piece of software is on a list before letting it in. As long as the package meets certain guidelines (mostly legal but also some technical standards) we let it in the door. That makes Fedora into whatever the user wants it to be. Trying to nail down what Fedora is just isn't going to work.

IMO, we should be trying to make it easier to get the correct bits to the correct people at the correct time. Whether that is through spins or through a DVD that allows you to select various package collections to install at installation. We are never going to shut out any particular user just because they aren't our target audience. People can do what they want to with Fedora right now and they do. We just need to make sure that our minimum packages are solid, that our SIGs have the resources needed to make their pieces of the puzzle work, and encourage that people build Fedora the way they want it.

Quite frankly, all this talk has me thinking that we're trying to run Fedora like a company. If we want our product to be X then we have to allocate people, money, and resources over there. Well, this isn't a company and we don't have control over what the people are going to work on. We need to let the people do their thing and support them through education initiatives, making sure that lines of communication are available, and to make sure we're one big group that is there to help each other out.

Sorry for the disjointed comments above... I think I'll go have the cup of coffee now.

- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)

iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJRfnSEAAoJEB/kgVGp2CYvjAsL/0Kzcb8g3qd7TGRTOZDUkjyv
J3KjUuosAoRa0E4u1SXyPhu1s5iP/NH9JszA9FNl2zjA5WxibIN285zrI2P/DaVv
sD+ELEuhJfIHWyabBY8Ix16av61aqy78s1MER52xR9Hxqi3MSP TK8Mpcqk2nw+3Q
+seuP2hbOnlpB6Qms/89j3Qdia+6qd0atdgPWXXxD4Sq0fEmjHptztpa8k3zY/OV
a0pb7N9Ae6nR6UaVXTSM5iQTBeXOwOZqvtf24IeRQO1y8y6cYx hVxQWf0A2+mIFl
axdxXyRVLamyjEo4c3TT2nT+eTCiF+RZOPDbzAaombHXjrJFEc NdDou3qVfsb14Q
ydHcrCNJbuN9C1SdNmbOV+24UdfJwPMHcL7voW2+E4UxSXMMQW bWkOOlAa5vNS9D
gA1r6YyrYjYnDMklHruT0/0YK3xvu5LV7oKggo+R1B4xAFJn2lDiUv5V6dMZIHGv
awnyp64rlMCXc0bDQAfC2NwRUcbYonp5cyxPv3qP2w==
=AW8x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Bruno Wolff III 04-29-2013 01:42 PM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 09:24:23 -0400,
Eric Christensen <sparks@fedoraproject.org> wrote:


Quite frankly, all this talk has me thinking that we're trying to run Fedora like a company. If we want our product to be X then we have to allocate people, money, and resources over there. Well, this isn't a company and we don't have control over what the people are going to work on. We need to let the people do their thing and support them through education initiatives, making sure that lines of communication are available, and to make sure we're one big group that is there to help each other out.


We do have some control over resources. We have money that gets used to
fund things like Flock, FUDcons and media. The board can ask people
to give higher priority to some tasks relative to others. That doesn't
magically make things happen, but can influence where contributors
decide to spend their time.

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

Eric Christensen 04-29-2013 02:40 PM

Follow up on Robyn proposal
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 09:24:23 -0400,
> Eric Christensen <sparks@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> >Quite frankly, all this talk has me thinking that we're trying to run Fedora like a company. If we want our product to be X then we have to allocate people, money, and resources over there. Well, this isn't a company and we don't have control over what the people are going to work on. We need to let the people do their thing and support them through education initiatives, making sure that lines of communication are available, and to make sure we're one big group that is there to help each other out.
>
> We do have some control over resources. We have money that gets used
> to fund things like Flock, FUDcons and media. The board can ask
> people to give higher priority to some tasks relative to others.
> That doesn't magically make things happen, but can influence where
> contributors decide to spend their time.

Flock, FUDcons, and other similar events are supposed to be open to EVERYONE. I would argue that we do have control over monies that could be used for FADs but those are generally started at the SIG level and should be something that we, the Board, should encourage when a SIG has a formal task they feel is important enough to need to get people together.

Sure, the Board can ask that some tasks happen but we really shouldn't outside of getting a solid base out the door. If there are enough developers that want to have a "server spin" (for lack of better vocabulary) then there will be one. We can't dictate that there will be an amateur radio spin just because we want one. If the people aren't there then neither will the output.

- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)

iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJRfoZFAAoJEB/kgVGp2CYvwVIL/12uOXWo9qjb/1T7Uk8ZPscE
+2hGxkQQH/2qbglySJC27zT4FNyypmL4bZLEQpLnB4qn3j+VLtyvqkRuOyn7 KyRZ
3h+XZbAUmGPUAGvLZ1a+wB6W3O6gFHT3Oiq9K9BaRKDgEZt4m7 SguNe4VPS57J6y
w4pRG7WF4n3Cz6/2DWD2tkXN6bjXs/i2K/NqkzLGAGY/1mQE/WIZKCgKY4lTCrMY
lqPRW1FHyz8VGmfuE7+2Hthqy+x2jMcHU8Jg9WBm1RRRLYFaSd Azp8mwYRDRZb6o
RniHo+4/JYgGiWJruI+9tgADCDJPdji1e3XAycZB7vxLC4Tw4h1eMrRXis KybX2R
O11nlo5kfhnvPF3QOx3VJ4+U5NBi7wXcFcmPNkG4o8y/pair1XZQt5SPylhP79/1
glQVaEQaC0TlJoei825LukxJy2CTp8mvg4Z1GnfRi0WXS9bCNe AKrwJZcMoHfpJK
CnzVUsAr5XtsahLKwDWghJjFUdi/2Zipta1jE9IfTQ==
=BWQs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.