Empowering Fedora sub-communities

[Matthew Garrett]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:48:38AM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> 
> On 04/02/2014 06:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >The people who have proposed these changes are backed by elected bodies.
> 
> Well both the individuals that are driving this effort are part of
> FESCo and why the board is backing this up beats me and why did
> those elect body not allow for a counter proposal being made to
> .next and WG?

You're free to make a proposal at any time, just as those who are 
pushing the .next effort did. You are not free to block a proposal based 
on your desire to write a counter proposal.

> >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?
> 
> Why aren't empty votes or none votes counted as people not being
> happy with candidates and how representive of the entire community
> is that voting since the last time I checked only fraction was
> voting?

Why aren't they counted as votes in favour? The obvious answer is that 
the fact that they didn't vote tells you nothing about what they believe 
(other than regarding how interested they are in voting), and so it's 
just not relevant.

> >  The
> >evidence simply isn't on your side here.
> 
> Be it as it may what you believe about evidence since what played
> part of me resigned from the serverWG was that I had been contacted
> by several maintainers ( which some where Red Hat employees ) which
> expressed concerns if I was going to be responsible for signing them
> up for maintenance work they were not willing to do, which I was not
> what I was about to do and was also the reason I emphazied so much
> on the baseWG meetings that Phillip would be in contact with every
> affected maintainer of the components they had agreed upon to keep
> to keep them in the loop and gather their feedback.

You keep mentioning all the people who contact you privately, and they 
keep failing to turn up in any discussion. I'm not denying their 
existence, just the fact that it's impossible to actually figure out 
what their concerns are and work to alleviate them unless they're 
willing to be part of the discussion.

> Why they contacted me I honestly have no idea and was quite
> surprised it's not like I'm the popular kid on the block but then
> again I was equally surprised when Stephen selected me to be on the
> serverWG or when I got asked to run for FESCo

Next time they contact you, suggest that they email somewhere more 
appropriate instead?

> Why those individuals have not stepped forward to back me up I can
> only speculate about as much as you can but ultimately it's their
> chose.

It is! Just as it's a perfectly rational choice for everyone else to 
ignore them because they're unwilling to participate in the community 
processes. Mentioning them doesn't bolster your argument.

As it is, right now we're fairly committed to following the .next path. 
And unless anyone comes up with serious suggestions for a better 
approach, we're going to continue to be. Your occasional dissent does 
nothing to discourage people from working on it, but it does disrupt 
conversations that aim at improving the proposal such that it suits a 
larger set of our community. If you want to help, help constructively - 
either participate with workable suggestions or come up with concrete 
proposals. Don't just hurl abuse and tell us we're doing it all wrong.

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