On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff ocjtech us> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, inode0 <inode0 gmail com> wrote:
I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are
made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework.
Unless a clear mission and purpose is defined, Fedora will just kind
of float along pushed around by whatever currents are strongest at the
moment. Maybe that sort of philosophy suits you, but I'd rather have
an idea of where we're headed.
The currents that push the strongest, those the contributors want to
spend their time on, are the currents we will ultimately float along
with. We can't force people to work on something they aren't
interested in working on and have the sort of community we have today.
There is a strong hint in all of this that some people prefer a
traditional hierarchical management structure to this project.
Fundamentally that is what fills me with the trepidation I mentioned
in my very first post on this thread.
Is it in the board's purview to "lead" the project by singling out
technologies it wants to move along over the next few releases?
Yes. Fedora has limited resources. That means that someone needs to
prioritize the use of those resources. As a corollary to that it may
mean that some projects/ideas may be denied resources.
I thought I was asking a rhetorical question there. And I think the
answer is no.
Are there structural problems within the project that this would help?
Fedora can't be everything to everyone, and if anyone in the project
thinks we can, I would call that a structural problem.
I think it is a problem if we exclude contributors who have a vision
that nine board members don't understand yet. Let them do their work,
make their case, and prove their point. We have mechanisms now for
determining winners and losers among competing technologies.