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

Re: I must be doing something seriously wrong...



On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:35:58PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2009, 13:07 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 06:11:22PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> >Am Donnerstag, den 21.05.2009, 08:46 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer: 
>> >> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 02:20:52PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> >> [snipped]
>> >> 
>> >> >privileges, so one should also pull his duties. If not,  IMHO the person
>> >> >is not qualified for FESCo, simple as that. (Sorry if this sounds harsh)
>> >> 
>> >> It doesn't sound particularly harsh, but I wonder what privileges you think
>> >> you get when you are in FESCo?
>> >
>> >As a FESCo member you are to decide over the direction that Fedora
>> >takes, this is the biggest privilege I can think of inside a FOSS
>> >project. 
>> 
>> 1) Yes, I do consider that a privilege.  It is also a burden :)
>> 
>> 2) Mostly we vote on policies and proposals and Features that the fedora
>> contributors submit.  So while FESCo approves those, the direction that Fedora
>> takes is almost entirely driven by those submissions.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong: A good number of proposals are made by people
>who are also in FESCo, right?

No.

>Also I've got a notion that FESCo recently approves more and more
>proposals without asking the community for opinions first and even in
>opposition to the community.

I can't recall that being the case.  There certainly may have been some
proposals that were opened during the week that were discussed on that Friday,
but we aren't creating secret proposals and voting on them.  All of them come
directly from contributors (usually via fedora-devel discussions) and are
logged in the open fesco trac instance for the meetings.


>
>> >I think Toshio already uttered similar concerns, so FESCo should have
>> >dealt with them *before* ratifying the policy. Looking at the IRC log I
>> >see there was *zero* discussion but only +1s. (This is how I'd expect a
>> >vote in the Communist Party of China but not in Fedora - SCNR)
>> 
>> Quite possibly, yes.
>> 
>> >> >I do think it is relevant. The policy deals with religious flags, but it
>> >> >does not deal with religions symbols. I could draw a square around
>> >> >symbol and call it a flag.
>> >> 
>> >> And I could remove a square from the flag and call it a symbol.  Discussing
>> >> theoreticals at this point is only going to lead us to more and more absurd
>> >> cases.  I don't think we're here to draft policies that cover every possible
>> >> situation whether it will ever happen in real life or not.
>> >
>> >I know I'm just to negative sometimes. I think we always need to be
>> >prepared for worst case scenarios, which also includes theoretical
>> >questions. Others say that this or that will never happen because we are
>> >all in the same boat, but I think history has proven different.
>> 
>> It's a prudent approach.  I find that preparing for the worst case scenario can
>> often lead to an entirely sub-optimal normal case scenario though.  A balance
>> needs to be achieved.
>
>Agreed, but IMO this balance is missing in this case. Most likely we
>have a different POV here.
>
>> >> The original question was about advertising to the users.  So how do we
>> >> advertise -docs packages to users, and why isn't that sufficient for -flags?
>> >
>> >I still think you put it wrong because IMO you are comparing apples and
>> >oranges. 
>> >     1. In a perfect world (TM) there is no need for docs because
>> >        everything is self self-explanatory. 
>> 
>> In a perfect world, there is no need for flags because humanity is united and
>> we have reached utopia.  We don't live in a perfect world.
>
>Even in the Star Trek universe there are still flags ;)

I'm done debating anything that starts with 'in a perfect world' because we
don't live in a perfect world and I hardly think that the Star Trek universe
would qualify as one either.

>> >     2. At least users *should* not need docs at least none that are not
>> >        installed by default. Our -docs packages are mostly targeted at
>> >        developers and system administrators. 
>> 
>> And our flags packages would be targeted at whom?
>
>Users in free countries.
>
>> >     3. If someone really needs docs, he will realize this himself,
>> >        because he is missing knowledge. For flags he doesn't. How is a
>> >        deluge user supposed the realize the lack of a function?
>> 
>> Deluge is clearly spelled out in the guideline as not needing flags for
>> functionality.  Is that statement incorrect?
>
>Please note the difference between "a function" and "functionality". Of
>course the missing flags do not impact the basic function of deluge
>which is sharing files, but there is certain functionality missing.
>People can no longer see the location of their peers on a quick glance
>and have to read instead. 


I don't find that concerning.  Maybe it will help literacy.

josh


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