12:55 p.m.
Hello there,
Many things bothered me lately and I'm quite sad how things turned up recently.
I know I'm going to write a lot, please bear some time and read what
I'm going to say. Thanks.
#001: The recent poll.
We are the fedora project. A project which has recently gained
attention and respect for its _professional work and standards_.
We already have a voting system
- which can be used as polls too.
- which has proved to be an excellent tool for the fedora infrastructure.
- which is maintained by the fedora infrastructure team.
- which provided quality results.
Last time, I mentioned "a mentoring module" to the ambassador project.
Why ? Because most of us don't know about the/many _internal_ fedora
facilities provided to them. For example: the above voting system
which hasn't been used.
I wish that we all could spend our time on concrete and long term
marketing projects which could benefit the Fedora Project itself,
rather on breaking the facilities provided(I'll come to that later
on).
If you don't know what long term marketing projects I'm talking of
- look for "Second Life" in your archives
- the F7 release. Hay Fedora will not ship KDE on F7 !! Do you know
about that ??
I'll leave it up to you to see how far is this true.
#002: Unfair Poll.
How many of you have voted for the poll without thinking about the
implications that the merge may have on the project itself ? Or do
your contributions for the fedora marketing world stop where the word
"marketing" stops ?
What I can see, it's the merge idea, came from FAMSCo. No attack.
That's fine and it's good to see ideas popping. However, I see no
indications on a wiki page
- where the merge proposal has been brought to FAMSCo meetings/discussions .
- where it explains (by the FAMSco member) the benefit of this idea/proposal.
Example of what I was looking for as a proposal to Steering Committee:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl
Perhaps, those discussions were done on (closed) FAMSCo mailing lists,
where no one else can read. Definitely, there is a reason for that.
Now the implications that may have ??
I already impress some of my opinions before:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2007-February/msg00...
Maybe you should re-read it again.
I don't see anywhere where it has described what mesures will be taken for:
- CLA . (or perhaps no one does take CLA seriously ?? or possibly
didn't understand _why_ fedora ambassadors need to sign it.)
Ask yourself _why_ have you signed CLA, fedora ambassador?
Let me tell you briefly:
You represent fedora during events or wherever you want. Any of your
contributions whether in the form of electronic, verbal, or written
communication is sent to the Project, including but not limited to
communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control
systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf
of, the Project for the purpose of discussing or improving software or
documentation of the Project, but excluding communication that is
conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by you as "Not
a Contribution."
Any Contribution submitted by you to the Project shall be under the
terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or
conditions, unless you explicitly state otherwise in the submission.
Now, what if anyone copies some texts from the mailing list (of a
person who havent signed CLA) and paste it to the Fedora Wiki without
asking for the personA ? This normally happens when summarizing long
discussions from the ML on the wiki. Perhaps, that personA can file a
legal case against fedora.
This above paragraph should automatically make you see the importance
of CLA signed by contributors. And perhaps you know that those have
signed CLA are not only Fedora Ambassadors, but also fedora packagers,
developers, artists....
Now, I don't see anywhere where it described
- mesures or methods dealing with CLA issues after the merge?
- whether we are strong for the merge or not ?? (don't take fedora
core and fedora extras as examples, they have high level quality
backbone for that)
- why _THIS_ period of the release cycle is appropriate for such
talks ?? or perhaps FAMSCo already have thoughts about how to market
Fedora in different countries.
If FAMSCo is working on none priority subject like the merge
- which has no interest on improving
- quality
- marketing
- which has no major benefit on the overall fedora project. (Yes,
there are lots of other projects, not only fedora marketing and fedora
ambassadors),
I guess decisions like
- FedoraEvents
- Fedora Weekly Reports on the Fedora Wiki
- solving DVDs problems in different parts of the world
- marketing F7
- informing ambassadors about the benefit of the merge of FC and FE
has already been solved and we are moving forward.
If not, perhaps opening FAMSCo ML to Fedora Ambassadors, would benefit
to the whole ambassador project of Fedora ??.
Chitlesh
--
http://clunixchit.blogspot.com
1:11 p.m.
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
If you don't know what long term marketing projects I'm
talking of
- look for "Second Life" in your archives
- the F7 release. Hay Fedora will not ship KDE on F7 !! Do you know
about that ??
I'll leave it up to you to see how far is this true.
I am not sure why you work on the KDE spin, participate in discussions
around it and then claim that it wont be included in Fedora 7. Just
doesnt make any sense to me.
What I can see, it's the merge idea, came from FAMSCo. No attack.
It originated here outside of FAMSCo here at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2007-January/msg000....
I did remind FAMSCo to take a decision on this sometime later.
I don't see anywhere where it has described what mesures will be
taken for:
- CLA . (or perhaps no one does take CLA seriously ?? or possibly
didn't understand _why_ fedora ambassadors need to sign it.)
Ask yourself _why_ have you signed CLA, fedora ambassador?
Moving to a different mailing list or opening existing ones more has
zero effects on the CLA.
Rahul
1:40 p.m.
On 2/16/07, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I am not sure why you work on the KDE spin, participate in
discussions
around it and then claim that it wont be included in Fedora 7. Just
doesnt make any sense to me.
I guess, you misunderstood me here.
It was rather a test for any reader on this list to see whether they
are aware of the multiple spins fedora will be providing.
It originated here outside of FAMSCo here at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2007-January/msg000....
I did remind FAMSCo to take a decision on this sometime later.
Thanks, this is an example of guidance "infrastructure" we need to set
up. (Helping and pointing others to materials at their disposals)
Moving to a different mailing list or opening existing ones more has
zero effects on the CLA.
True, but the variety of decisions taken and actions considered do
have a relation to
- CLA.
- reimbursement (to whom ?? fedora Ambassador ?? is there a difference
being A fedora Ambassador?? What are the exceptions?? )
Chitlesh
--
http://clunixchit.blogspot.com
7:53 p.m.
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
> Moving to a different mailing list or opening existing ones more has
> zero effects on the CLA.
True, but the variety of decisions taken and actions considered do
have a relation to
- CLA.
Yes, but none of them actually change because of any mailing list
movements.
- reimbursement (to whom ?? fedora Ambassador ?? is there a
difference
being A fedora Ambassador?? What are the exceptions?? )
Again none of these change. Ambassadors would continue to get reimbursed
or not depending on the event etc as usual.
Rahul
9:40 p.m.
On Saturday 17 February 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
>> Moving to a different mailing list or opening existing ones more has
>> zero effects on the CLA.
>
> True, but the variety of decisions taken and actions considered do
> have a relation to
> - CLA.
Yes, but none of them actually change because of any mailing list
movements.
> - reimbursement (to whom ?? fedora Ambassador ?? is there a difference
> being A fedora Ambassador?? What are the exceptions?? )
Again none of these change. Ambassadors would continue to get reimbursed
or not depending on the event etc as usual.
I believe his point is that, at present, anyone on this mailing list is
supposed to have completed the CLA. The marketing list doesn't have that
requirement, so merging them would make it more difficult to keep track of
what list members have what privileges and status. Sometimes there will be
discussions where the subject matter applies only to contributors that have
completed the CLA. Those discussions would become considerably more complex,
and any measure of propriety would be lost. Also, anything delivered through
the mailing list that we would want to use elsewhere would have to be checked
for an applicable CLA. That requirement already exists on the Marketing
list, but we have worked hard to eliminate that need on this list. While
this does not stand alone as a reason not to merge the lists, it is one of
many factors to be considered.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
http://n-man.com/
LinkedIn:
http://linkedin.com/in/nman64
Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
--
10:29 p.m.
Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
I believe his point is that, at present, anyone on this mailing list
is
supposed to have completed the CLA.
Supposed to, yes. In reality, there are many people who have not.
The marketing list doesn't have that
requirement, so merging them would make it more difficult to keep
track of
what list members have what privileges and status.
It is pretty trivial to query the cla_done group via
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem/QueryAccount
if you are uploading or redistribution content but members should always
upload it themselves and all redistribution should have proper
licensing anyway.
Sometimes there will be
discussions where the subject matter applies only to contributors
that have
completed the CLA. Those discussions would become considerably more complex,
and any measure of propriety would be lost.
It seems we are just speculating here. I doubt any *discussions* should
be based on CLA requirements. Content is the only that matter for the CLA.
Also, anything delivered through
the mailing list that we would want to use elsewhere would have to be
checked
for an applicable CLA.
.. which is one of the reasons we always encourage people to upload
content themselves. Since if they have edit access to the wiki, they
already signed the CLA.
We should avoid the club mentality. Ambassadors was born as a sub
project for marketing and came out from the idea of community marketing
contacts. "Marketing" is not a dirty word even in the world of Free
software and has considerable effects as already proven by groups like
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/. Going direct is pretty important for us.
Increasing and concentrating the efforts as a group is a first step for
that. We already have many discussions copied into both lists because
folks dont know whether they need to limit it one list among these two.
That is a pretty good sign that we need to converge. Lets stop the
proliferations of projects and mailing lists.
Rahul
11 p.m.
On Saturday 17 February 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
> I believe his point is that, at present, anyone on this mailing list is
> supposed to have completed the CLA.
Supposed to, yes. In reality, there are many people who have not.
If we follow through with our initial plans, those people would be removed.
> The marketing list doesn't have that
> requirement, so merging them would make it more difficult to keep track
> of what list members have what privileges and status.
It is pretty trivial to query the cla_done group via
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/AccountSystem/QueryAccount
if you are uploading or redistribution content but members should always
upload it themselves and all redistribution should have proper
licensing anyway.
Trivial, sure, but it's already hard enough to get people to pay attention to
the CLA. It would be only a matter of time before someone would use content
without checking for a completed CLA.
> Sometimes there will be
> discussions where the subject matter applies only to contributors that
> have completed the CLA. Those discussions would become considerably
> more complex, and any measure of propriety would be lost.
It seems we are just speculating here. I doubt any *discussions* should
be based on CLA requirements. Content is the only that matter for the CLA.
Discussions based on specific content, or through which content is produced,
would make the CLA a concern. Also, we still limit certain process, like
FAmSCo voting, to people who have completed the CLA - and for good reasons.
Related discussion or processes carried out through the mailing list would be
complicated without a CLA requirement on the list.
We're also facing even more confusion over some of our requirements when
people start joining the list without completing the CLA. We'll spend a lot
more time telling people when they do or do not need to complete the CLA, and
we'll most likely see complaints over some of the requirements when they
leave people feeling offended or like we're asking too much. We faced a bit
of that early on with this project.
> Also, anything delivered through
> the mailing list that we would want to use elsewhere would have to be
> checked for an applicable CLA.
.. which is one of the reasons we always encourage people to upload
content themselves. Since if they have edit access to the wiki, they
already signed the CLA.
Of course. I'm not saying that this is a big problem, but what Chitlesh is
trying to say is accurate. This is another factor to consider before
combining the lists.
We should avoid the club mentality. Ambassadors was born as a sub
project for marketing and came out from the idea of community marketing
contacts. "Marketing" is not a dirty word even in the world of Free
software and has considerable effects as already proven by groups like
http://www.spreadfirefox.com/. Going direct is pretty important for us.
Increasing and concentrating the efforts as a group is a first step for
that.
I don't think that increasing or concentrating efforts should be our focus
right now. Instead, focus is what we need more of. We have a lot of idle
potential sitting here. What do we really accomplish by combining the lists?
We get a big hassle, we aren't drawing in new contributors, we aren't
dramatically increasing traffic on this list, we're reducing the focus of the
marketing list, and for what?
We already have many discussions copied into both lists because
folks dont know whether they need to limit it one list among these two.
That is a pretty good sign that we need to converge. Lets stop the
proliferations of projects and mailing lists.
The purposes of the lists are different. As Karsten and I have pointed out,
there are two, very different needs that are addressed by these lists. We do
need to make it absolutely clear what types of discussion belong to each
list, and that people are subscribed to the correct lists for their
interests. Ambassadors should generally watch the Marketing list, even
though they may not need to participate, but people on the Marketing list may
have absolutely no interest in the Ambassadors project, and merging the lists
would effectively force those people out.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
http://n-man.com/
LinkedIn:
http://linkedin.com/in/nman64
Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
--
9:26 a.m.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
Trivial, sure, but it's already hard enough to get people to pay
attention to
the CLA. It would be only a matter of time before someone would use content
without checking for a completed CLA.
The answer, in my opinion, is to remove the CLA requirement *completely*
if you're not submitting actual code. There are simpler ways to enforce
"copyright cleanliness" for wiki-based content. For instance:
"By editing this wiki page, you agree that the content you add is made
available under the Open Publication License (link), and that you have the
legal right to contribute such content."
The CLA is overkill for wiki contribution.
--g
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------
9:34 a.m.
Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
> Trivial, sure, but it's already hard enough to get people to pay
> attention to
> the CLA. It would be only a matter of time before someone would use
> content
> without checking for a completed CLA.
The answer, in my opinion, is to remove the CLA requirement *completely*
if you're not submitting actual code. There are simpler ways to enforce
"copyright cleanliness" for wiki-based content. For instance:
"By editing this wiki page, you agree that the content you add is made
available under the Open Publication License (link), and that you have
the legal right to contribute such content."
The CLA is overkill for wiki contribution.
Greg, you are officially outdated now. Try editing the wiki now. The
edit window already has a license notice in it.
Rahul
10:59 a.m.
On Monday 19 February 2007, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
> Trivial, sure, but it's already hard enough to get people to pay
> attention to the CLA. It would be only a matter of time before someone
> would use content without checking for a completed CLA.
The answer, in my opinion, is to remove the CLA requirement *completely*
if you're not submitting actual code. There are simpler ways to enforce
"copyright cleanliness" for wiki-based content. For instance:
"By editing this wiki page, you agree that the content you add is made
available under the Open Publication License (link), and that you have the
legal right to contribute such content."
The CLA is overkill for wiki contribution.
We would need a bit more than that. We have to get an agreement to the full
CLA, not just the current wiki license. The CLA does a lot more than make
sure everything is under the OPL. If we only require agreement to the OPL,
we'd be facing the same situation that made us add the CLA requirement if
ever we wanted to change licenses again in the future. I'm sure Red Hat
counsel would have other input on the matter. That also doesn't address any
of the concerns with regard to the mailing list requirements. This is really
a discussion for another time and place, though.
--
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64(a)n-man.com
http://n-man.com/
LinkedIn:
http://linkedin.com/in/nman64
Have I been helpful? Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
--
1:54 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
We already have a voting system
I used this system because it's the shorter ways to make a poll in the
same day we had decided to do that. If, in the future, there will be the
needs to do a poll we will use it.
The system used was approved during the ambassador meeting.
Regards
Francesco Ugolini
- --
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FrancescoUgolini
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF1gwSo7ksRmSqXkYRApQcAKC/Xdq2s1qNSl/9JIn0qPmqTQguzgCfbSxR
s7JBnv6kOEQeh3eh5PxbiYY=
=K3Vd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6274
days inactive
6277
days old
ambassadors@lists.fedoraproject.org
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Chitlesh GOORAH -
Francesco Ugolini -
Greg DeKoenigsberg -
Patrick W. Barnes -
Rahul Sundaram