[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] looking at our surrent state a bit



Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

The plan was to meet all two weeks IIRC. I think that should suffice if
it would be held in.

It has been. It was not during FC6 release time because people in the board were involved in it. Thats all.


What does getting more involved into decisions and more presence involve?

Comment/Issue a statement on the Legacy problem that was discussed on
LWN.

It was discussed in detail that evolved into a discussion about funds. The details would be made public when things evolve further.


Where is the agenda for the next meeting? Or a schedule similar to the
one FESCo has ( http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule ) so
people interested in the work can look at the current status?

I will set that up.


Further take a look at
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings
{{{
Upcoming meetings:
 * October 3 (10:00 AM EDT, 2:00 PM GMT)
 * October 17 (5:00 PM EDT, 9:00 PM GMT)
}}}

Great work! (Sorry, but what shall I say)

This was the original plans and it has been postponed due to release work as stated already. I prefer that interval to stay as it is rather than complete wipe it out.


"Participating in a meeting" and "looking at the results" are two
different things.

You can discuss the results in the list. I dont see any functional difference. I prefer the list before it makes it easier for a wider community to respond without sitting on the channel at the same time.


Normally they are quiet most of the time. But they raise their voice if
they think that's needed or if it's an area where they are working. That
works quite well.

I read FESCo meeting mins everytime and I dont see many non FESCo members actively participating or commenting in between meetings.

Well, why meet then in any case? Because it does not work. So we meet on
IRC.

The meeting is for FESCo members. If non FESCo members start actively participating and expressing their opinions on the channels then it would become tiresome pretty soon. If you want to hear opinions of the larger community its better to do that on the list instead of in between the meeting which can be done in this list for the board meetings.

But why should we lock the community out there? That would be stupid.

That is exactly how FESCo meetings were held before. This doesnt lock out community if the meetings results are published regularly and can be dicussed in the lists.

Sure, there may be discussions that need to be held in private, but that
doesn't happen that often (and if, on the private fesco-list).

If we force ourselves to have public discussions everytime, we wont be able to discuss things freely effectively. Some things are better off discuss between people offlist or in a private list or meeting. Board discussions are usually of this nature and I believe many people prefer talking on phone to IRC. tend to identify nicknames in IRC better than voices on phone and I am much better on email personally though.


Well, contributing to core is still hard afaics.

You can very easily send patches and participate in anaconda-list if you have any interest in contributing. This is not a reason why people are not contributing. The only thing limited currently is packaging.


Well, we're getting rhetorical here. For me it looks like that: Red Hat
failed to get the community involved properly/to build one up and thus
contributors wandered of elsewhere. Those stupid contributors like me
that work for Fedora in their free time are busy with a lot of stuff
already and don't have time to work on more stuff.

I guess we could speculate on the reasons but active development didnt happen. A good way to actual fix things would be get involved. Live CD is very much a priority for us in the current development release cycle. If this involves getting someone in Red Hat to do that everytime, that might slow down progress.


Not sure, I'm not a marketing guy. But we need to communicate better
that we're nearly as free as Debian (here and there we are worse, in
other areas we are better afaics). Most people don't know that afaics.
Where are we worse?

Well, some people might say that as we ship firmware packages in our kernel.

So does Debian.


Take Gnome 2.12 as example: I'm sure many Red Hat developers worked
quite hard on it and got some quite nice improvements into it. But we
never shipped it in Fedora Core. Ubuntu and Suse did and took the glory
for it.

I would prefer we discuss things on the terms of Fedora rather go into a competitive comparison. Yes, sometimes GNOME or Firefox or Xorg or KDE would do a release in the middle of Fedora development which we wont be able to accommodate. People would have to wait for the next release if they want that. We might skip releases and pick the next one. When upstream projects work in a distributed fashion, it is inevitable that some project or the other wont be coordinated with Fedora. This is not news.


We should give users a chance to run their hardware they buy (even if
that hardare was brought to the market after FCx) -- and the drivers for
that sometimes require newer X.org releases, while the next FC with that
new X.org version might still be far away. So what do you suggest to
those users? Run Windows? Run Rawhide?

Wait for the next release. We wont be pushing everything as updates. We need to maintain quality for the release and updates. Major updates of a new release of GNOME have higher chances of regressions when pushed out as updates.

Sure. That's not what I proposed. But if there are important things
missing (FF 2.0 in FC6; AIGLX in FC5, Gnome Update in FC4) then try to
get a solution that makes installing those software possible easily (the
AIGLX on FC5 was more a disaster because it was poorly maintained).
AIGLX on FC5 was not installed by default. It was a *experimental* separate repository that users had to go and install by themselves.

And that did not work often as updates from core confused it multiple times.

Sure. There is a reason it is called experimental. If it worked reasonably well, it would have been part of the release instead of a add on repository.

[ripping firefox aside, see mails to jesse]

Major updates of GNOME post release as updates falls into the same "too risky" category as Xorg updates for me.

Agreed. But I think FC4 should have get one, or FC5 should have shipped
way earlier.

If a major release of Xorg follows 3 months after GNOME with a Fedora release somewhere in between we wouldnt be able to accomodate all these in the same release and not within updates either. They would have wait for the next release.

Ignoring the opinion from the community won't help building a community
around Fedora.

We are trying to solve the bigger problem instead.

This is very broad generalization.

I think that's how it looks often from the outside. Remembers Fedora
Extras? It took quite some time after the fedora.us/Red Hat Linux
Project merger until it took of (one and a half year iirc).

Yes and that got fixed only because some people in the community decided to act on it and do something about it themselves. Thats what we need more of.

Rahul


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]