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


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-27-2008, 06:55 AM
Matej Cepl
 
Default FCoA

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:43:49 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi scripst:
> should FESCo concentrate on being the drivers of new changes? Which
> means, being more involved with creating new policies, new subprojects,
> etc. This, in turn, means that FESCo would be a much more active body,
> with less time for arbitration and judgement of current projects. So it
> should be delegating those responsibilities out while it works on
> building new communities around new subprojects.

So, should be there a Fedora Court of Arbitration? ;-) I mean seriously,
in so huge and disintegrated body as Fedora community is now, conflicts
are bound to happend, and we may need some semi-official means of
settling them.

(of course, Fedora being a very different type of community than "the
real world", most of the rules of arbitration from there wouldn't apply
or would have to be severely modified, so please no legalese here for
now).

Matěj
-- That's the second time in one reading of fedora-devel my lawyer's past
risen its ugly head; scary :-(
--
The content of this message is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 License, Some Rights Reserved.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 08:02 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default FCoA

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 08:55:16AM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
>
> So, should be there a Fedora Court of Arbitration? ;-) I mean seriously,
> in so huge and disintegrated body as Fedora community is now, conflicts
> are bound to happend, and we may need some semi-official means of
> settling them.

It is already the case. The rule is more or less, bring it to the lists
and then to fesco. But this is costly so having propoer guidelines to
follow like AWOL are better.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 08:08 AM
Denis Leroy
 
Default FCoA

Patrice Dumas wrote:

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 08:55:16AM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
So, should be there a Fedora Court of Arbitration? ;-) I mean seriously,
in so huge and disintegrated body as Fedora community is now, conflicts
are bound to happend, and we may need some semi-official means of
settling them.


It is already the case. The rule is more or less, bring it to the lists
and then to fesco. But this is costly so having propoer guidelines to
follow like AWOL are better.


Hmm why is it costly ? I've had a few conflicts resolved that way, and
in a reasonably speedy fashion. I don't think I've ever seen a call for
help on fedora-devel-list going unanswered...


Going over this thread this morning, it read something like this :

13:21 [a]: I quit because of this problem I didn't tell anyone about!
13:23 [b]: It's an outrage! What is FESCo doing ?!?
13:25 [Fesco]: ¿ Qué ?

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 08:47 AM
"David Nielsen"
 
Default FCoA

2008/4/27 Denis Leroy <denis@poolshark.org>:

Patrice Dumas wrote:


On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 08:55:16AM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:


So, should be there a Fedora Court of Arbitration? ;-) I mean seriously, in so huge and disintegrated body as Fedora community is now, conflicts are bound to happend, and we may need some semi-official means of settling them.





It is already the case. The rule is more or less, bring it to the lists

and then to fesco. But this is costly so having propoer guidelines to

follow like AWOL are better.




Hmm why is it costly ? I've had a few conflicts resolved that way, and in a reasonably speedy fashion. I don't think I've ever seen a call for help on fedora-devel-list going unanswered...



Going over this thread this morning, it read something like this :



13:21 [a]: I quit because of this problem I didn't tell anyone about!

13:23 [b]: It's an outrage! What is FESCo doing ?!?

13:25 [Fesco]: ¿ Qué ?
I think many of the people who have left active contribution life, myself included, simply feel overwhelmed with the amount of beaucracy. Why complain, we already feel like we are being forced around by boards and commitees who meet and decide the fate for us all and it doesn't really feel like they are working for us. It feels very much like we have no influence. More beaucracy is not the solution here, I think lessening the effort needed to get help and let your voice be heard is. Let us start a Fedora Mentor program for new contributors, to guide through the little kinks with a smile and so new people have a friendly face to turn to instead of endless wiki pages. Right now being a contributor feels a lot like being thrown out of the nest by your sponsor and expected to fly, getting reviews done has a discouraging nepotistic feel to it, you can have packages sitting around for months if you don't know anyone. We need some kind of network here to catch these little stumbling blocks that frustrate new developers.


We need to ensure a way to remove the bottlenecks, help explain how to do a good review, how to get the information mentioned in those guidelines. Everytime we get a contributor who does not master this we simply add to the workload of people who do and we add to the backlog of packages that sit in the review queue. More contributor might in fact end up being a bad thing. Let us foster a culture where it is okay to ask questions and ask for help, and make it easy to do so. Encourage developers with many packages to draw in new developers, hold their hand as co-maintainers for one of their packages and eventually let them own it. This way we would also avoid the risk we currently have where if something happens to Hans or he decides to switch priorities in life, 200 packages are without an owner overnight.


- David

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 09:04 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default FCoA

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:08:56AM +0200, Denis Leroy wrote:
>
> Hmm why is it costly ? I've had a few conflicts resolved that way, and in a
> reasonably speedy fashion. I don't think I've ever seen a call for help on
> fedora-devel-list going unanswered...

It doesn't scale. I sent my personal experience in
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-February/msg00496.html
since then some bugs have been closed, but not all and I certainly reopened
at least the same number of similar bugs getting unhandled. And remember
how Michael Schwendt reacted to having his rightly reported bugs to be
closed.

Reporting the bugs packagers don't care about on the fedora-devel list
or to fesco is not right. Ther should be a way to oblige maintainers
without bothering everyone.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 09:55 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default FCoA

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:47:35AM +0200, David Nielsen wrote:
>
> I think many of the people who have left active contribution life, myself
> included, simply feel overwhelmed with the amount of beaucracy. Why
> complain, we already feel like we are being forced around by boards and
> commitees who meet and decide the fate for us all and it doesn't really feel
> like they are working for us. It feels very much like we have no influence.

All kind of beaucracies don't have the same influence on community
empowerment. What I want here are rules such that it is easier for community
members to force other packagers to act upon bugs. Hopefully the new
rules should allow to bypass FESCo and end up being simpler. However,
these rules are not targeted at most of the contributors, but those who
propose solutions together with bugs, I think it is a small part of the
contributors. And it is also directed against packagers who either don't
care much about their packages or are heavily under load and for an unknown
reason don't ask for co-maintainers, it is also a small part of the
packagers.

> More beaucracy is not the solution here, I think lessening the effort needed
> to get help and let your voice be heard is. Let us start a Fedora Mentor
> program for new contributors, to guide through the little kinks with a smile

This is the role of the sponsor.

> and so new people have a friendly face to turn to instead of endless wiki
> pages. Right now being a contributor feels a lot like being thrown out of
> the nest by your sponsor and expected to fly, getting reviews done has a

I have never refused to answer questions from people I sponsored, and I even
try to follow a bit their acts, and I am pretty sure that it is the case
for every sponsor. Did your sponsor ignored you?

> discouraging nepotistic feel to it, you can have packages sitting around for
> months if you don't know anyone.

I don't think this 'nepotistic feel' is right. The problem is rather
that reviews require to find an interested reviewer with the needed
skills. Therefore groups form with shared interests and in these groups
reviews will be done much rapidly. Otherwise one have to wait for a good
soul like Tibbs, Parag or Mamoru (I recalled from the top of my head,
and I checked afterwards
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageStatus and I got
it right, even the order who do a lot of diverse reviews to help you.
I agree that it is not very healthy, but I am not sure that it can be
avoided.

In the end these groups depend on who fedora attracts. I personally fear
that in the future the diversity will be reduced (though hopefully EPEL
could drag in other kind of people).

> We need some kind of network here to catch
> these little stumbling blocks that frustrate new developers.

I have never seen that, but I have heard that there are people on irc
almost always here and willing to help.

> We need to ensure a way to remove the bottlenecks, help explain how to do a
> good review, how to get the information mentioned in those guidelines.
> Everytime we get a contributor who does not master this we simply add to the
> workload of people who do and we add to the backlog of packages that sit in
> the review queue.

You mean by living people or by documents (for example like
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MultilibTricks).

> More contributor might in fact end up being a bad thing.
> Let us foster a culture where it is okay to ask questions and ask for help,
> and make it easy to do so.

I think that questions on -devel list are never turned down and in
general people try to answer. The expertise may not be there, however.

> Encourage developers with many packages to draw
> in new developers, hold their hand as co-maintainers for one of their
> packages and eventually let them own it.

Everybody can go to the package database and ask to be in initialCC and
in commit messages. However learning how to use the packagedb raises the
bar for newcommers.

I think that the reverse is also right, that is have the sponsor ask for
co-maintainership to be in initialCC and receive commit messages from
the people he sponsored.

> This way we would also avoid the
> risk we currently have where if something happens to Hans or he decides to
> switch priorities in life, 200 packages are without an owner overnight.

We are not encouraging enough co-maintainership, I agree, but as far as
I can tell each time somebody went AWOL (some rather important packagers
did that in the past) things went smoothly. Maybe it won't in the
future, I don't know. There are certainly packages that will have hard
time finding anew maintainer. For example it seems to me that packagers
interested in fortran for example are not very numerous so if the few
people interested quit, the few packages will certainly be left.
But if gnome packages, even a big share, are orphaned they'll find new
maintainers soon, in my opinion.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 03:49 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default FCoA

On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 11:04 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:08:56AM +0200, Denis Leroy wrote:
> >
> > Hmm why is it costly ? I've had a few conflicts resolved that way, and in a
> > reasonably speedy fashion. I don't think I've ever seen a call for help on
> > fedora-devel-list going unanswered...
>
> It doesn't scale. I sent my personal experience in
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-February/msg00496.html
> since then some bugs have been closed, but not all and I certainly reopened
> at least the same number of similar bugs getting unhandled. And remember
> how Michael Schwendt reacted to having his rightly reported bugs to be
> closed.
>
> Reporting the bugs packagers don't care about on the fedora-devel list
> or to fesco is not right. Ther should be a way to oblige maintainers
> without bothering everyone.
>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/NonResponsiveMaintainers

Please feel free to help make this better.

> --
> Pat
>
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (jkeating.livejournal.com)
Fedora Project (fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 08:53 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default FCoA

2008/4/27 David Nielsen <gnomeuser@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2008/4/27 Denis Leroy <denis@poolshark.org>:
>
> >
> > Patrice Dumas wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 08:55:16AM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, should be there a Fedora Court of Arbitration? ;-) I mean
> seriously, in so huge and disintegrated body as Fedora community is now,
> conflicts are bound to happend, and we may need some semi-official means of
> settling them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is already the case. The rule is more or less, bring it to the lists
> > > and then to fesco. But this is costly so having propoer guidelines to
> > > follow like AWOL are better.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm why is it costly ? I've had a few conflicts resolved that way, and in
> a reasonably speedy fashion. I don't think I've ever seen a call for help on
> fedora-devel-list going unanswered...
> >
> > Going over this thread this morning, it read something like this :
> >
> > 13:21 [a]: I quit because of this problem I didn't tell anyone about!
> > 13:23 [b]: It's an outrage! What is FESCo doing ?!?
> > 13:25 [Fesco]: ¿ Qué ?
>
> I think many of the people who have left active contribution life, myself
> included, simply feel overwhelmed with the amount of beaucracy. Why

Bureaucracy occurs as more people join a group. It occurs because
people are not mindless creatures and can not always agree on what
each one wants. Human communication is very lossy at best even when
people speak the same language. Even when people have the best
intentions, they will have their own interpretations of what is said
and will do things that look to be misaligned. You then add in
bureaucracy to keep that to a minimum (checklists, additional
meetings, re-approval to confirm that things are done as they were
first agreed etc etc.) When you add in people who do something for
their own 'gain' or their view of whats best, you add in more
bureaucracy to make sure that such corruption is caught and removed.
Bureaucracy grows at best as a n*log(n) of the size of the group...
but in some cases can grow at n^n. At some point every government
structure begins to fall down because you can't grow the checks,
balances, and work-flows (e.g. bureaucracy) to be efficient for the
size of an organization.

There are few "cures" to bureaucracy:
1) Small groups that stay in constant communication with each other.
This usually requires physical communication as humans pick that up
better than reading/listening. Usually after you get over 8-12 people
this begins to fall apart. You can try to scale that by keeping groups
reporting to each other and letting them have open communication, but
then you start adding in various bureaucracy to make sure that group A
didn't misreport (by purpose or accident) which causes breakdowns and
corruption.
2) Big stick rule. Someone has the big stick and anyone who does not
do what the Big Stick wants is hit with it. Groups can grow a lot
larger when they are being beaten/killed for falling out of line. Of
course at some point you can't hit enough people, so you have to give
out more sticks, and then you have to worry that someone else with a
stick is going to take your spot so you have to keep the 2ndary
beaters in line. At which point you have more bureaucracy.

Various forms of Anarchy or Libertine is usually only a cure as long
as you don't have people gaming the system. However since humans are
inherently greedy animals... they will start gaming the system for
their benefit (even if they do not think they are) which then causes
people to start banding together to stop that which becomes
bureaucracy and/or big stick rule rather quickly.

> complain, we already feel like we are being forced around by boards and
> commitees who meet and decide the fate for us all and it doesn't really feel
> like they are working for us. It feels very much like we have no influence.
> More beaucracy is not the solution here, I think lessening the effort needed
> to get help and let your voice be heard is. Let us start a Fedora Mentor
> program for new contributors, to guide through the little kinks with a smile
> and so new people have a friendly face to turn to instead of endless wiki
> pages. Right now being a contributor feels a lot like being thrown out of
> the nest by your sponsor and expected to fly, getting reviews done has a
> discouraging nepotistic feel to it, you can have packages sitting around for
> months if you don't know anyone. We need some kind of network here to catch
> these little stumbling blocks that frustrate new developers.
>
> We need to ensure a way to remove the bottlenecks, help explain how to do a
> good review, how to get the information mentioned in those guidelines.
> Everytime we get a contributor who does not master this we simply add to the
> workload of people who do and we add to the backlog of packages that sit in
> the review queue. More contributor might in fact end up being a bad thing.
> Let us foster a culture where it is okay to ask questions and ask for help,
> and make it easy to do so. Encourage developers with many packages to draw
> in new developers, hold their hand as co-maintainers for one of their
> packages and eventually let them own it. This way we would also avoid the
> risk we currently have where if something happens to Hans or he decides to
> switch priorities in life, 200 packages are without an owner overnight.
>

All that is more bureacracy in a different format than is currently
done. Someone (person A) has to check to see that the people are
getting serviced well, that developers do not get overloaded etc.
Someone (person B) has to check that the checks are being done by A
and whoever else because they get overloaded and may not get to all of
them but that leaves people falling through the cracks.


--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 09:30 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default FCoA

Stephen John Smoogen <smooge <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 1) Small groups that stay in constant communication with each other.

Isn't that what our SIGs are?

> This usually requires physical communication as humans pick that up
> better than reading/listening.

At least for the KDE SIG, IRC is working pretty well.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 09:39 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default FCoA

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen <smooge <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > 1) Small groups that stay in constant communication with each other.
>
> Isn't that what our SIGs are?
>
>

Yes.. but the reporting, the forming of a SIG, the meetings, the
writing of webpages to inform people outside of a SIG, etc are all
forms of bureaucracy. The more work that a group needs to do, the more
such 'checks/balances/communication' are required because people
forget to send report (*cough*guilty*cough) etc.

> > This usually requires physical communication as humans pick that up
> > better than reading/listening.
>
> At least for the KDE SIG, IRC is working pretty well.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
>
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>



--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:14 PM.

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