#16: Periodic contributor survey
---------------------+-------------------
Reporter: mattdm | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
---------------------+-------------------
This is a tracking ticket for establishing a process by which we get
regular feedback from the Fedora contributor base.
This is a companion to https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/1. The
desired goals, methodology, and basically everything else are really
different between users and contributors it will be better to track them
separately.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/16>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Project Board Public Tickets
#27: Proposed Schedule for PRD Refresh
----------------------+-------------------
Reporter: sgallagh | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
----------------------+-------------------
As discussed in the Hangout meeting today, we need to do a periodic
refresh of the PRDs to make sure they are kept up-to-date. I propose that
each of the Edition, Base and Env/Stacks groups should provide an update
by 23:59 UTC on June 12, 2015 for review. This gives a little over a week
for them to be reviewed prior to the Change Submission Freeze as currently
scheduled.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/27>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
#22: Objective Proposal: University Involvement
----------------------+-------------------
Reporter: sgallagh | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
----------------------+-------------------
I alluded to this during the Council meeting on Monday, so I'm going to
attempt to turn this into a formal proposal.
== Objective: University Involvement ==
=== Overview ===
Increase Fedora's exposure in university environments, particularly
engineering universities.
=== Expected Impact ===
Increased user base with a specific focus on future contributors.
=== Timeframe ===
For maximum effect, if we elect to work towards this Objective, we should
kick it into gear at the beginning of the summer with the intent of having
events planned during the 2015-2016 school year.
=== Aspects ===
* Coordinate marketing, ambassador and outreach groups to focus on
university needs
* Work with universities to provide install-fests during student
orientation periods
* Work with universities to regularly run Fedora-focused hackfests
* Work with university IT departments to co-maintain one or more Fedora
computer labs (and help them upgrade them during breaks)
* Establish work-study, co-op and for-credit programs at universities
=== Metrics ===
* Increased contributions from university programs
* Increased bug reports and feature requests
* Increased mind-share among potential contributors (not easily measured)
=== Additional Notes ===
Some prototypes of this have been performed at Brno universities over the
last few years, with very positive results. We should coordinate with the
contributors involved in those efforts and learn from their successes and
failures.
There is also a University Outreach program run by Red Hat's "Open Source
and Standards" department which was involved in the RIT partnership from
which we eventually acquired Remy DeCausemaker. I assume he will have
plenty to add to this discussion as well as contacts in the university
world.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/22>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
#21: Permission for using Fedora trademarks for "Bantuan Fedora Indonesia"
---------------------+-------------------
Reporter: salimma | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
---------------------+-------------------
Some Indonesian contributors are working on utilizing [https://github.com
/fedora-id/asknot-ng asknot-ng] for providing a landing page for users
(and potential users) to get a clear picture of localized Fedora resources
and potential ways of contributing .
The main Fedora instance of asknot-ng powers
[http://whatcanidoforfedora.org/ What Can I Do For Fedora]; for ours we
have not decided yet what domain we will use.
To generate the static site from the code on GitHub, the original
instructions apply, but use this invocation instead:
````
./asknot-ng.py templates/index.html questions/bantuan.yml --theme fedora
````
We will probably create a substitute theme if permission to use Fedora
branding is not obtained; we plan on contributing translations for the
main site as well.
If this requires a discussion at an upcoming meeting, let me know and I'll
notify the others to attend as well. Thanks!
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/21>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
#25: Council Update at Flock
---------------------+------------------
Reporter: jwboyer | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: minor
Component: General | Keywords:
---------------------+------------------
I registered a Council Update talk for Flock 2015:
https://register.flocktofedora.org/proposals#48
This ticket is mostly for FYI and coordination purposes. We can use it to
plan what we'd like to discuss and to track who is going to be present at
Flock.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/25>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
#28: Packaging FAD China 2015
---------------------+------------------
Reporter: alick | Owner: alick
Status: new | Priority: major
Component: General | Keywords:
---------------------+------------------
Wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_FAD_China_2015
list discussion: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/council-
discuss/2015-May/013375.html
Sorry for the rush, but since the planned date is drawing near, we would
like to hear a decision soon. Thanks!
Besides, it seems not very good to delay the event further because of
upcoming F22 release and unsync with local LUG activities.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/28>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
#26: Objective Proposal: Fedora Modularization (Requirements Phase)
------------------------+-------------------
Reporter: langdon | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: Objectives | Keywords:
------------------------+-------------------
= Fedora Modularization: Fedora.next: What is Next (Requirements Phase) =
== Background ==
We have had much discussion of the "rings proposal" and "fedora.next."
However, it has not been completely clear what to "do next" now that the
proposal has been accepted. While, the largest change has been made
(introduction of "editions"), it is time to focus on the next steps. I
(and others) thought it would be helpful to have an "Objective" to
coalesce the work.
== Objective: Fedora Modularization: Fedora.next: What is Next
(Requirements Phase) ==
=== Overview ===
For this Objective, we want to specifically focus on the “technical”
aspects of the rings proposal(s). By “technical” we mean "how we want to
move forward regarding the composition of the OS (in all Fedora
Editions)". However, we don’t expect the participants in the discussion to
be limited to technical folks.
While much discussion has taken place regarding methods for distribution,
what has become most clear is that there are a number of constituencies
within Fedora which have competing, and perhaps, conflicting requirements
for the long term plan.
=== Expected Impact ===
* A set of requirements, perhaps conflicting, to move forward with
=== Timeframe ===
We need to move quickly on this work. Proposing that the requirements
list(s) be complete by Flock 2015.
=== Approach ===
Fedora.next Modularization will be tackled in three phases (requirements
gathering, solution identification & agreement, and, finally,
implementation), this Objective covers the first of those phases. For the
"requirements gathering" phase, we expect to:
1. Ask the WGs to identify segments of their user population which may
benefit from a modularized approach to OS composition. Please use the list
below to get started.
1. Ask the WGs to reach out to their population segments to get feedback.
Perhaps sending an email to the appropriate mailing list and holding 2-3
"town hall" meetings (by segment) to gather feedback
1. Provide both the raw feedback and prioritized set of requirements, by
user segment, to the Objective Team
=== Detailed Approach ===
We have identified several different types of Fedora user. Some of these
user types might benefit strongly from this approach; for others, perhaps
less. These different groups are Fedora users who:
* Wish to primarily run Fedora approved applications for the full
lifecycle of a given release (or longer)
* Wish to primarily run 3rd party applications for the full lifecycle of a
given release (or longer)
* Develop applications based on frameworks provided by Fedora but will
ultimately be deployed to a server (i.e. web apps)
* Develop applications based on frameworks provided by Fedora which will
be deployed on desktops (e.g. gnome-boxes)
* Develop components of Fedora itself or the frameworks Fedora provides
(e.g. kernel, apache, python)
Side note: here, “Fedora approved” means a binary in an official Fedora
repository of some kind (might be main rpms, playground, or some other
method of distribution).
We would like to ask the WGs to identify which of the above applies to
their existing user population. And, of course, propose any other
additional categories that may have been missed.
Next, we would like the WGs to gather feedback from users, by user
category. Below find some ideas for questions or topics; please share
with us (and the other WGs) any other questions/topics you come up with.
* Nature of updates: disconnected updates, connected updates, live
updates, user initiated, automatic
* Support for multiple versions of "components" (either dependencies or
user tools)
* "Quality" of available components. Multiple aspects here: Are beta
versions of tools available? Improperly packaged components? Does "method
of delivery" (e.g. containers vs rpm) change the opinions? (For example,
if a beta of a tool was delivered in a container that couldn't "hurt" the
base OS, would that be more acceptable than a tradtional RPM?)
* Flexibility: Is it OK to have components that are not installable
together? Or "sets of components" that work together and come as a unit?
(Made up example: "php-support" can be provided by the "php-nginx" or the
"php-apache" but you can't have both at once)
* Can/should different sub-components have different "lifecycles" vs the
OS? (For example, can F23 ship with Gnome 3-LTS but then have Gnome-Fast
shipping within the F23 lifecycle?)
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/26>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
Hi,
I would like to request the subdomain latam.fedoracommunity.org to the
LATAM community website. Below are the details of the request:
Responsibles: Daniel Bruno (dbruno), Alejandro Perez (aeperezt).
Address: fedora-latam.org
Let me know if more information is needed.
Regards,
--
Daniel Bruno
http://dbruno.org
Mentor of Fedora Ambassadors on Latin America
Hello all,
I've been around in the community for quite a bit, and while I'm not a
kernel-dev or a team lead, I still like to think I belong to the
community - helping where I can. Why I've stuck around over the years,
other than because I've made friends in the community that I'd miss, is
the philosophy of Fedora - the stance we take towards FOSS - which
distinguishes us from any other Linux distribution.
Recently, since we moved on to Fedora.next, we've been working hard to
make the OS as user friendly as we can - the OS must be easy to set up
and use if we're to gain users, and gain market share in the process.
But, what is the purpose of this drive to increase our market share?
*Why* do we want more users? To beat other distributions in numbers? So
that we can say we have more users than them?
As I've always understood it, the primary goal of the Fedora community
is to spread awareness about FOSS, and the OS is a *tool* to accomplish
this goal - the more we improve the OS, the more users we have, the
more we can spread philosophy of FOSS.
Recently, though, I've begun to feel like the goal has just become to
"gain more users", and the "in order to spread FOSS" part is slowly
losing its importance. We've been discussing inclusion of non FOSS
software, for example - in whatever capacity - repositories, meta-data
links, the software itself - you will be aware that we've had a fesco
ticket discussing policy changes too. (FESCo refused and asked the
concerned parties to take it up with the Board)
The reason why we do not include non FOSS software seems to have
changed from "because we want to only use FOSS - that is our mission"
to "because including non FOSS software may risk RH, the company that
backs us", somewhere along the line. While the latter is true, it
distresses me to think that for some, this has now become the primary
reason. The primary reason used to be "because we want our users to use
FOSS as much as practically possible", and it is fortunate that this
fit in perfectly with protecting RH. Surely, RH Legal should not be the
the set of people stopping us from including non FOSS software??
(I'm not being naive here, I do understand that it is really important
that we don't expose RH to liability, but the point is, that as a
member of the Fedora community, this cannot be the primary reason.)
This change seems to have happened because we've started taking Fedora
being FOSS for granted. We just don't think, speak or write about it
enough - we're too engrossed in making good products for users to the
level that people actually consider changing policy just to make a
product "easier to use". (I'm all for making Fedora easier to use. If
you were on the planet today, you'd have seen my post about Appstream
data for RPMFusion.)
As an isolated example, the workstation mission statement begins: "The
Fedora Workstation working group aims to create a reliable, user
-friendly and powerful operating system for laptops and PC hardware."
The term FOSS does not figure here. This is our primary product aimed
at end users.
The simplest solution is to restart actively speaking about FOSS, about
actually working on increasing awareness - our primary goal. I've
written this to the council discuss list and not another because the
council is tasked with leading the community - and not only towards a
good OS implementation wise, but also towards the primary goal of
spreading FOSS, which to me, is what gives Fedora its identity in the
first place. I hope this will stimulate a discussion about what we need
to do to get the primary goal of the community back into focus.
At a non council level, some of us have been thinking about an essay
contest, which decause very nicely coined "Why we FOSS". The idea is to
have a competition to get people to write why they use Fedora and open
source software - and to use these essays as a medium to spread
awareness. It's just an idea and we're working on details, but it's a
start. decause also suggested that the contest also be held as part of
the university outreach program, to expose young minds to the
philosophy.
In conclusion, the community seems to be forgetting that our goal is to
spread FOSS and the OS is a tool to achieve this, and I would very much
like the council to think about this and how this needs to be
rectified.
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
#30: Auxiliary seat change - approve Jan Kurik as a new Council member
---------------------+-------------------
Reporter: jreznik | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
---------------------+-------------------
Fedora Program Manager (FPgM) coordinates the planning and scheduling of
Fedora releases, and tracks changes and features during the development
and testing cycle. He or she also assists with the creation, maintenance,
and execution of formal, repeatable Fedora processes. Additionally, the
FPgM serves as record keeper and secretary for Fedora Council Meetings.
I'm no longer going to work in this position, Fedora 22 was released
yesterday and Jan Kurik is taking care of Fedora 23+ as the new FPgM. As
per policy [1], Council approval is required.
I recommend Jan as he's already filling the FPgM role for Fedora 23 - from
scheduling, changes submission processing to improvements in releng
processes. I'm very happy he was selected and funded by Red Hat and as I
know him, he's truly dedicated hacker that will perfectly fit into the
Fedora Project and Council. Of course he is/will get as much as possible
help from me, to make sure it's smooth change.
We're already under transition, please take this ticket as my official
resignation from the Council. I'm very proud and happy that FPgM is now
officially recognized as part of Fedora leadership team. And maybe one day
I'll be back in one of Fedora elected roles, who knows :).
Thanks!
Jaroslav
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council#Auxiliary_Seats
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/30>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets