Fedora Board Recap 2009-01-20

[mmcgrath at redhat.com]

On Jan 22, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 06:37:24PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>>
>>> To me that's a cop out.
>>
>> I'll note that you still haven't answered your own question ;).
>>
>
> I'm not on the board but I'll play that game just the same:
>
> To provide a platform where new and free technologies come to get  
> first
> exposure to our larger industry.
>
>>> How can 13,000+ active community members all lead a
>>> single project?  Why have a board at all[1]?  I think the community
>>> leading was great back when there weren't that many of us but now  
>>> I really
>>> do think it's hurting people.  I'm happy to continue to aid in  
>>> leading the
>>> infrastructure team but where are we going and for what ultimate  
>>> purpose.
>>
>> I think infrastructure is a great example of community leading.   
>> You guys roll
>> out stuff all the time that is new and exciting and was never  
>> dictated by
>> a Board, planned out, and made sure to fit in "mission statements"  
>> or "goals".
>>
>
> I assure you what we roll out is often planned out.  I'm not looking  
> for
> dictation, I'm looking for larger overall direction.  What are we  
> doing?
> Where are we going?  If the answer is "building fedora 11" that's  
> not the
> "think larger" answer I'm looking for.
>
>>> Everyone has their own expectations of Fedora but no one has said  
>>> what it
>>> is and should be.  The result is us constantly not meeting the
>>> expectations of the mainstream (because those expectations have  
>>> not been
>>> defined by us) and then having technical users discount us because  
>>> of the
>>> bad press.  Not everyone is doing this, but enough are that people  
>>> take
>>> notice.
>>
>> I see both good and bad press surrounding Fedora.  Do you have  
>> examples of
>> where you think we really need to address a criticism that has been  
>> made?
>>
>
> People complain about Fedora because they don't get why we are  
> here.  They
> jumped in, installed Fedora thinking it was something else.  Why did  
> they
> think that?  Because we don't define it so others do.
>
> That overview page has a lot of content.  It is unfocused, unclear,  
> far
> too long and isn't really asking the right questions.  "Who uses  
> Fedora?"
> "Linus Torvalds"  So what?  We won the Torvalds prize?  That's a nice
> factoid but it's not an overview.  There's a reason Torvalds uses  
> Fedora
> and he (and we) know what it is.  But since we don't define it, we  
> don't
> whistle it while we work, so people not involved in the development
> process don't get it.
>
> This thing I'm talking about, we should reek of it.  When you install
> Fedora you should smell it in the exhaust of your CPU.
>
> We have not given context with our distribution upon using it.  It's  
> not
> just some new jerk distribution.  It's not a general purpose  
> distribution
> (unless it is?)  We continue to fight with the press to say we get  
> stuff
> in first and we're doing the work, but we continue to get compared to
> other distributions out there.  We should hold ourselves and the  
> press to
> a higher standard.  When someone uses Fedora or reviews it it should  
> be
> under the context of "new" not "compared to distribution X" because  
> I'd
> like to think we're different then that.
>
> Simply trying to make a free distribution just isn't enough for us  
> and the
> talent we have in our project anymore, what's next?.

It did just dawn on me that I might be trying to fix something that  
isn't really broken. So I'll sit tight and see what others think.  
Kthx. :-)

             -Mike