Hi,

Interesting move from Intel. Let's hope they start contributing to
Fedora more.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/23/moblin_reworked/

Digg It:

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Intel_s_Moblin_dumps_Ubuntu_in_favor_of_Fedora

"Under the changes, the existing Ubuntu-based kernel is out and Fedora
is in, along with a set of Gnome-compatible mobile components that
updates Moblin's previous Gnome implementation.


Dirk Hohndel, Intel's director of Linux and open-source strategy, told
The Reg there was no falling out with Ubuntu, but the move to Fedora was
a technical decision based on the desire to adopt RPM for package
management."


Rahul

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

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Rahul Sundaram
<sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Interesting move from Intel. Let's hope they start contributing to Fedora
> more.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/23/moblin_reworked/

Is there any previous archived discussion anywhere....that talks about
their plans with regard to actually interacting with Fedora in a
"project" sense. If there goal really is to attract developers, they
need to talk to us about aligning the development process of moblin
with Fedora policies...or else the switch they are doing might not not
give them a contributor boost. Isn't that one of the lesson learned
from OLPC? Just forking the Fedora 'bits' isn't going to necessarily
be the win in terms of contributor involvement. I think they need to
seriously be looking at how to pull moblin development into the Fedora
project.

Who's at OSCON right now, who can talk to Dirk about this? Greg?

-jef

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

Rahul Sundaram escribió:

Hi,

Interesting move from Intel. Let's hope they start contributing to
Fedora more.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/23/moblin_reworked/

Digg It:

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Intel_s_Moblin_dumps_Ubuntu_in_favor_of_Fedora

"Under the changes, the existing Ubuntu-based kernel is out and Fedora
is in, along with a set of Gnome-compatible mobile components that
updates Moblin's previous Gnome implementation.


Dirk Hohndel, Intel's director of Linux and open-source strategy, told
The Reg there was no falling out with Ubuntu, but the move to Fedora
was a technical decision based on the desire to adopt RPM for package
management."


Rahul

Interesting read indeed... I don't mean to flame, and I don't know all
the technicallities involved, but I find it rather interesting they are
presenting as one of the reasons to move towards a Fedora base the
package format, which is interesting as I've gottent into way too many
discussions about which package format is "better" (.deb or .rpm), and
since I don't know any intrinsics about both formats I cannot say as
such (I use RPMs and am comfortable with them, but I've also used DEBs
and dpkg directly and they don't feel too much different at the
barebones level)... At any rate, just like Jeff says, hopefully this
will mean greater involvement from Intel in Fedora, and lining
themselves with Fedora's policies.


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

On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:16 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Rahul Sundaram
> <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Interesting move from Intel. Let's hope they start contributing to Fedora
> > more.
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/23/moblin_reworked/
>
> Is there any previous archived discussion anywhere....that talks about
> their plans with regard to actually interacting with Fedora in a
> "project" sense. If there goal really is to attract developers, they
> need to talk to us about aligning the development process of moblin
> with Fedora policies...or else the switch they are doing might not not
> give them a contributor boost. Isn't that one of the lesson learned
> from OLPC? Just forking the Fedora 'bits' isn't going to necessarily
> be the win in terms of contributor involvement. I think they need to
> seriously be looking at how to pull moblin development into the Fedora
> project.
>
> Who's at OSCON right now, who can talk to Dirk about this? Greg?

I already set Greg and Karsten on this earlier last night. Greg can
summarize how that went and where we go from here, but I'm sure he made
it plain to Intel/Moblin that there's an opportunity for them here.

--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list

On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 12:18 +0000, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:16 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Rahul Sundaram
> > <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Interesting move from Intel. Let's hope they start contributing to Fedora
> > > more.
> > >
> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/23/moblin_reworked/
> >
> > Is there any previous archived discussion anywhere....that talks about
> > their plans with regard to actually interacting with Fedora in a
> > "project" sense. If there goal really is to attract developers, they
> > need to talk to us about aligning the development process of moblin
> > with Fedora policies...or else the switch they are doing might not not
> > give them a contributor boost. Isn't that one of the lesson learned
> > from OLPC? Just forking the Fedora 'bits' isn't going to necessarily
> > be the win in terms of contributor involvement. I think they need to
> > seriously be looking at how to pull moblin development into the Fedora
> > project.
> >
> > Who's at OSCON right now, who can talk to Dirk about this? Greg?
>
> I already set Greg and Karsten on this earlier last night. Greg can
> summarize how that went and where we go from here, but I'm sure he made
> it plain to Intel/Moblin that there's an opportunity for them here.

Karsten reported, in response to someone else's thread inside Red Hat:

'
In terms of Moblin, right when you (and Paul and ...) hit us with the
Reg article, Dirk Hohndel was giving a 'chalk talk' about Moblin. Greg
DeKoenigsberg, John Poelstra, and myself went to hear and get involved
in the Q&A. In response to Greg's question ("What can I do for you?"
handing him his business card), and the audience question about why
switching from Ubuntu to Fedora, Dirk's responses were:

* They already interface with Dave Jones and have for some time; Dirk
feels that is a solid and legitimate way to interface, as he considers
them downstream and need to push any changes back up in our direction
and in other upstreams.

* They switched to Fedora because they want to use RPMs ... so they can
build in OpenSUSE's Open Build System. Greg took more careful mental
notes than I did about the specifics, but Dirk had some functionality
that, "Sorry, Koji does not have."

* He didn't seem to be interested in Moblin as a feature of Fedora, per
se. He's happy to work as a downstream entirely.
'

--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list

2008/7/24 Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com>:
> * He didn't seem to be interested in Moblin as a feature of Fedora, per
> se. He's happy to work as a downstream entirely.

I wasn't thinking Fedora 'feature' I was thinking more along the lines
of how OLPC is interacting with us..sort of...without making use of
the Fedora brand directly.

Obviously they have a technical investment with OpenSuse's building
service. Is there room for a technical bridge there between that
service and our infrastructure? I'm not saying that we build that
bridge for them. But if over time they wanted to work with us more
closely, would we allow some sort of technical bridge to be built?

My concern is primary about doing what is best to build contributor
interest in the space that Moblin is attacking. I'm not sure they are
going to get a community involvement boost acting as a complete
separate downstream to our..kernel. I think they will only get a real
boost if they align their internal project processes with the process
of either OpenSuse or Fedora to more easily access one or the other
existing contributor pools. And I think we can do that without
forcing them to use the Fedora brand. We are sort of doing this with
OLPC right now, aren't we? I hate to see them bouncing back and forth
trying to be the downstream of different projects in succession,
looking for the magic ticket that unlocks new contributor interest.

-jef

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

On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:49 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> 2008/7/24 Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com>:
> > * He didn't seem to be interested in Moblin as a feature of Fedora, per
> > se. He's happy to work as a downstream entirely.
>
> I wasn't thinking Fedora 'feature' I was thinking more along the lines
> of how OLPC is interacting with us..sort of...without making use of
> the Fedora brand directly.

Right, but the obvious difference is that Intel's resources dwarf ours
-- and that's a *major* difference.

> My concern is primary about doing what is best to build contributor
> interest in the space that Moblin is attacking. I'm not sure they are
> going to get a community involvement boost acting as a complete
> separate downstream to our..kernel. I think they will only get a real
> boost if they align their internal project processes with the process
> of either OpenSuse or Fedora to more easily access one or the other
> existing contributor pools. And I think we can do that without
> forcing them to use the Fedora brand. We are sort of doing this with
> OLPC right now, aren't we? I hate to see them bouncing back and forth
> trying to be the downstream of different projects in succession,
> looking for the magic ticket that unlocks new contributor interest.

Downstream should be free to choose what they like from upstream to
build their own toys. That's the promise of FOSS. What will unlock
contributor interest is their vision of Moblin -- which we can't give
them. I worry that this thread sounds a little too much like requiring
downstream to have a relationship with us. That sounds a bit
unrealistic to me.

I'm not sure what "aligning internal project processes... to more easily
access one or the other existing contributor pools" means. But if you
believe it's a worthy goal, this is something you can (and probably
should) discuss directly in the Moblin project.

--
Paul W. Frields
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list

2008/7/25 Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com>:
> Downstream should be free to choose what they like from upstream to
> build their own toys.

This is a given. No one is saying people are not free to choose.
But generally, large changes in project direction, should also be
moments of reflection and introspection. The direct quotes attributed
to Dirk in the article speak to a desire to attract contributors. Just
moving to rpm packaging, and re-basing on a Fedora kernel isn't going
to do that. If they are looking to make changes to attract more
contributors and have a more active community, then those changes were
not communicated in the article.

> I worry that this thread sounds a little too much like requiring
> downstream to have a relationship with us. That sounds a bit
> unrealistic to me.
>
> I'm not sure what "aligning internal project processes... to more easily
> access one or the other existing contributor pools" means. But if you
> believe it's a worthy goal, this is something you can (and probably
> should) discuss directly in the Moblin project.

Let me be clearer then. They should replicate or integrate with as
much of our contributor facing infrastructure and policies as they can
to lower the barrier to entry to their project as far as possible so
that people in our community who care about the mobile sector can work
with them. I don't give a crap if they want to use the Fedora brand or
not.

I have an email out to Arjan with these very thoughts.

-jef

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

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 12:59:46PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> 2008/7/25 Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com>:
> > Downstream should be free to choose what they like from upstream to
> > build their own toys.
>
> This is a given. No one is saying people are not free to choose.
> But generally, large changes in project direction, should also be
> moments of reflection and introspection. The direct quotes attributed
> to Dirk in the article speak to a desire to attract contributors. Just
> moving to rpm packaging, and re-basing on a Fedora kernel isn't going
> to do that. If they are looking to make changes to attract more
> contributors and have a more active community, then those changes were
> not communicated in the article.

I'm not surprised the article didn't reflect it -- it struck me as a
little bit sensationalist and not interested in the details. But we
should be used to that!

> > I worry that this thread sounds a little too much like requiring
> > downstream to have a relationship with us. That sounds a bit
> > unrealistic to me.
> >
> > I'm not sure what "aligning internal project processes... to more easily
> > access one or the other existing contributor pools" means. But if you
> > believe it's a worthy goal, this is something you can (and probably
> > should) discuss directly in the Moblin project.
>
> Let me be clearer then. They should replicate or integrate with as
> much of our contributor facing infrastructure and policies as they can
> to lower the barrier to entry to their project as far as possible so
> that people in our community who care about the mobile sector can work
> with them. I don't give a crap if they want to use the Fedora brand or
> not.
>
> I have an email out to Arjan with these very thoughts.

The messages I've seen from Arjan imply that Moblin is going to do
this in their own way, and the messages I saw from Greg and Karsten
support that as well.

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list

2008/7/27 Paul W. Frields <stickster@gmail.com>:
> The messages I've seen from Arjan imply that Moblin is going to do
> this in their own way, and the messages I saw from Greg and Karsten
> support that as well.

Until i see some sort of open discussion, even an archived one, as to
the goals for community growth Dirk was quoted on and the Moblin
collective thoughts on how they are working towards those specific
goals as part of Moblin 2.0.. I'm simply not going to concede that
"their own way" means "completely different." So far I've seen
specific comments about technical implementation solutions for
building the bits. All this 'noise' about the reason to package rpms.
I've seen squat on thoughts about contributor policy and
guidance..anything that actually speaks to the directly attributed
quotes from Dirk in the article concerning his desire to grow their
contributor community. They've made the mistake of catching my
attention, and there is a heavy price to pay for that.

-jef

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