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

Re: "What is the Fedora Project?"



Mike McGrath said the following on 10/08/2009 07:56 AM Pacific Time:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, inode0 wrote:

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath redhat com> wrote:
Upstream developers regularly come to me (as the Infrastructure Lead)
Looking for additional resources to do X or Y.  I'd like to start
providing that.  This comes both in terms of just guests to do testing, as
well as infrastructure for clients on our installed userbase to do
reporting back for various information.

This is implementation though.  All of which is well below the discussion
we're having.
This is a perfect of example of a different kind of leadership.
Someone sees a problem, decides the problem is worth solving, figures
out who wants to solve it, provides them with the wherewithal to make
it happen.

I'm still struggling to understand what sorts of real problems are
made easier to solve by the "What is Fedora?" framework. The default
spin keeps coming up so I guess either the board isn't happy with how
that is working now or thinks additional guidance is needed by those
creating it currently? To help alleviate new user/contributor
confusion about what Fedora is?

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? Are
there structural problems within the project that this would help?

I know I probably sound like I'm set against this business, I really
just don't see so much of the upside to it as I think you do and I'd
like to really understand what its purpose is intended to be.

Being honest, I am concerned it could be used to broaden the board's
involvement in areas of the project where delegation of responsibility
already seems to exist.


Honestly the discussion we're having on F-A-B right now is a major
distraction to the who is fedora for topic of which is my primary concern.
There doesn't seem to be any consensus among the Board, most have remained
quiet until a scheduled meeting so my hopes of any actual change are
quickly vanishing.  Which is totally fine.  The problem I'm trying to
solve is arguments and future planning being done by those who shout the
loudest or longest.  Lots of different engineers pulling Fedora in
different directions instead of having us all work towards one direction.
I seem to be in an incredible minority in thinking this.


A proposal was made to cancel our board meeting today because two people couldn't attend and so that we could all dedicate some time to posting here. In the interest of full disclosure, less than half the board members respond to that proposal.

I had hoped to spend my time answering the original questions I posed, but instead spent it reading the other posts and trying to write some thoughtful replies which always take me too long :-/ I plan to reply to my original questions by the end of tomorrow (2009-10-09), hopefully earlier.

I don't agree that it is fine that a number of board members have remained silent. I believe we have been elected and appointed with an obligation to participate. I recognize and respect that everyone has busy lives. I also believe that if other things get in the way we have an obligation to let others know or step down so others can get involved.

I think we should hear from everyone and that the position of each board member should be made clear. Maybe some have been silent because they think the way this are currently is fine. If that is the case, they should say that and motion that we drop this topic from future agendas.

The other part of this process on fedora-advisory-board was to hear what the community thinks about all of this. I'm hoping there will be more non-board members who will give their voice to whether the questions I originally raised are the right ones, wrong ones, etc. I would also hope that if there are those that think they are the wrong questions to ask they will provide constructive criticism to help us find a new direction.

Thanks,
John



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