Fedora Infrastructure Team - Help Wanted
by Mike McGrath
The Fedora Infrastructure team is looking for some more volunteers to
help better support the day to day activities of the Fedora Project
contributors and developers. We are looking for dedicated, capable
volunteers to help in all aspects of our Infrastructure. We're
especially looking for the following skills / experiences:
* Python experience (Huge plus right now)
* Version Control Systems (CVS, Mercurial, SVN, git, etc)
* Users with access to their own test-environments
* Troubleshooting Linux and web systems
* General systems engineering / administration
* Extras Reviewers / Packagers
Interested members should check out the getting started page on the
wiki (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/GettingStarted).
If you'd like to assist in a specific area, contact one of the
relevant infrastructure officers
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Officers).
Any aid at all helps, from security audits to coders we're looking to
make our systems better. If you think you can help, we'd be glad to
have you.
-Mike
17 years, 6 months
thoughts on LWN "how many Fedora users are there"
by Max Spevack
My fellow Fedorans,
I have some thoughts on the LWN article/discussion that was taken from a
few of the recent postings to fedora-advisory-board.
Rather than send the same message to a bunch of different Fedora lists,
I'm just going to spit it out here on fedora-announce-list.
http://lwn.net/Articles/203694/
All of the "interesting" threads about Fedora that we've seen on LWN tend
to begin with one of the LWN editors browsing the Fedora Advisory Board
archives and commenting on some of the discussions that take place there.
It's not like that's an accident.
When we set up that mailing list, we said two very specific things:
1) This is *the list* where the controversial conversations about Fedora
will take place.
2) This list is completely open. Anyone can read it. Anyone can post to
it. And we hope that people will!
I'm glad people are reading it. I'm glad people *care* enough about the
issues that are discussed on it to write a large number of comments to a
story about Fedora.
So the *particulars* of this thread about Fedora metrics to me are *less
important* than the fact that these conversations -- in their raw,
unedited form -- are being had 100% in the open. And that they are being
had in very large part by people who do not work for Red Hat. And that
people who don't work for Red Hat are making decisions about Fedora policy
that are then implemented.
That was the goal of the Fedora Board, and the Fedora Advisory Board. And
it's working.
Seth Vidal and Dave Jones summed it up well in the comments on LWN. There
was an idea. That idea was discussed in public. It received criticism,
others were proposed, options were weighed, and a decision was made.
That's how it's supposed to work.
So what's the purpose of taking parts of that conversation and sticking
them on a news site like LWN?
Is it to:
A) be critical of the *initial idea* and made Fedora look foolish for
having thought of it to begin with?
B) be a case study of "the lifecycle of a controversial decision in
Fedora"?
C) *incorrectly* imply that Red Hat might want to cut funding for Fedora?
D) demonstrate a problem with Fedora (lack of strong metrics) and show
some of the conversations around that problem?
The Fedora Advisory Board list is made up of all sorts of different types
-- engineers both inside and outside of Red Hat, lawyers, marketing
experts, folks who are considering business issues, folks who are
considering technical issues, etc.
When the ideas of one group come up against the scrutiny of other groups,
it isn't always pretty.
But the *end result* is what matters. And since we inaugurated the Fedora
Board in April, I think the Fedora Project has a solid track record of
doing the "right thing" in the end.
The fact that the rest of the process is transparent should, in my
opinion, be held up as a good thing.
It is a side effect that looking into that process can occasionally lead
to a fun comment/flame thread. Laugh at us if you want to. Flame us if
you want to. We're still going to talk about it in the open, because as
an organization the Fedora Project is committed to that transparency, even
when it isn't necessarily the *easiest* choice.
So please, judge us based on what we actually DO, not just what we talk
about and then throw away.
--Max
P.S. RED HAT IS NOT GOING TO CUT FUNDING FOR FEDORA! Quite the opposite,
in fact. But I can't just walk into the magic room full of gold and take
a pile of it. There has to be justification. There has to be a Plan. It
has to be treated like Serious Business(TM). :-) And I think that any
product (free or otherwise) that can't at least give a ballpark
guesstimate of how many people use it is going to have some problems being
taken seriously.
--
Max Spevack
+ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack
+ gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc
+ fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21
17 years, 6 months
Fedora Core 6 release date slip
by Jesse Keating
We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A few
issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we release.
- Possible ext3 corruption bug
- Installs with 256megs of ram stall
- Package ordering issues on multilib platforms (x86_64, ppc64)
- SELinux issue with updating kernels on ppc platforms
- iscsi based installations not functional
There are obviously other issues and bugs still open, but these are the ones
that are really "blocking" the release. To give enough time to fix these
issues, we've extended the release date 6 days to Tuesday, Oct 17th. Freezes
are still in place (even more so now). Your extra careful testing of rawhide
over the next few days would greatly be appreciated.
Keep an eye on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Core/Schedule for any changes.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
17 years, 6 months
