Empowering Fedora sub-communities

[Matthew Garrett]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:10AM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:

> You have a strong technical background so in the hope you will be
> able to begin understanding the complexity and what is required to
> be able to make multiple products on multiple release cycles to
> work, I'm going to ask you to Ignore Fedora it's, community, it's
> share number of component and sub communities and play the
> distribution board game where you step into the role of the "distro
> creator" where you will create from ground up very simple multiple
> products on multiple release cycle using a shared common denominator
> between those products.

I've been involved in distribution development for over a decade. I am 
currently contributing to the release scheduling of my company's 
product. Believe me, I understand these tradeoffs. And yet, RHEL 
releases multiple products every cycle. Ubuntu releases multiple 
products every cycle. We effectively (in the form of spins) release 
multiple products every cycle. Reality suggests that we manage to figure 
this out.

> >You can disagree with our direction. You are able to make alternative
> >proposals. You even have the option of standing for election to the
> >bodies that make these decisions. Yet, instead, you repeatedly make
> >snide comments from the sidelines, accuse people of being corporate
> >shills and claim that there's an ongoing conspiracy to destroy the
> >Fedora community.
> 
> 
> They have done nothing to prove that they community agrees with them
> nor shown any evidence of why this change was needed in the first
> place like some statistics about the decline of fedora in usage or
> popularity and by the way grep for FedoraOS from fesco meeting logs
> where fesco deliberately pushed the WG onwards not allowing me to
> come up with a counter proposal to the .next and wg when this whole
> thing was starting before you accusing me not trying to follow our
> own procedures or criticize my personality that has been forged by
> the actions of the governing body's of the project.

The people who have proposed these changes are backed by elected bodies. 
If the community agrees that this is a bad move, why did we not elect 
people who disagree with .next in the most recently elections? The 
evidence simply isn't on your side here.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org