On 04/27/2013 10:48 PM, inode0 wrote:
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Michael Scherer <email@example.com> wrote:
Le samedi 27 avril 2013 à 11:32 -0500, inode0 a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Michael Scherer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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
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
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
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...
advisory-board mailing list