#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
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/16>
Fedora Project Board Public Tickets
#65: Create standard operating procedure for how treasurers interact with budget
Reporter: jflory7 | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: major
Component: General | Keywords: budget
'''Prenote''': Another form of this ticket is also filed in the
[https://pagure.io/fedora-budget fedora-budget] repository as
= Problem =
It is unclear how Ambassador regional treasurers are expected to interact
and participate in reporting expenses with regards to the Fedora Budget.
= Analysis =
A lot of work was done in setting up this repository as a method for
publicly tracking expenses. I think using Pagure is an effective solution
and if properly taken care of, it will be an effective tool for us. But
right now, there is no clear information for how a treasurer is expected
to contribute to this repository or what the expectations even are.
A high priority item for this should be to create a standard operating
procedure (SOP) either as a separate DOC or in the README about '''what'''
treasurers will do with this repository, '''how''' they are expected to
contribute information, and maybe any details / information about
'''when''' this information is expected each fiscal year.
I think it's important that the Council helps take charge and action on
this to help maintain a healthy, active, and maintained version of the
Fedora budget. I see a lot of work that was put into this and I'm fearful
that it will be forgotten / left behind until it reaches a point where it
might be easier to start all over again with a different solution.
= Implementation =
1. Understand how treasurers reported this information in the past for
2. Discuss with treasurers / regional representatives about how to help
make it easier to contribute this information and what their needs are
3. Begin drafting a first set of guidelines for how to contribute to the
4. Share and put to vote with the Fedora Council
5. Begin following this SOP for all future engagements in this repository
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/65>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
On 09/29/2016 08:54 AM, council wrote:
> #71: IRC SIG reform
> Reporter: be0 | Owner:
> Status: new | Priority: normal
> Component: General | Resolution:
> Keywords: |
> Comment (by mattdm):
> I'll try to make some time to hang out in the channel next week. I do
> appreciate the effort that this takes.
I've been hanging out on the channel off and on for the last couple
weeks. I have yet to see a problem personally. I think that the
issues around the channel are being exaggerated; I suspect that we're
really talking about one bad op, and that's it.
IMHO, Fedora *should* have a formal process for adding and removing OPs
with regular rotation, and for complaints about the channel, especially
CoC violations. But I don't personally see a reason to throw out all of
the existing Ops.
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
I was re-reading the third party software policy (and also the FESCo
ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1617#comment:10), and
happened to notice that it looks like WGs are currently intended to be the
final arbiters of what repositories are and are not allowed to be included
in particular Fedora editions, particularly this comment:
"The submission process is edition-based. Acceptance into Fedora
Workstation, for instance, does not guarantee your software will be as
easily available in another Fedora Edition or in a Fedora Spin. It is up to
each working group or special interest groups how to make available any
software in their system."
I realize I'm a little late to bring this up, but this seems potentially
concerning if, say, the Workstation and Server WGs both want to include a
third party repository that packages the same software but differently.
This would then potentially make the editions incompatible, which doesn't
Perhaps this is an implementation detail to be worked out, but as it's not
otherwise mentioned in the policy... it seems like in the interests of
standardization it would be better if a single group (FESCo? perhaps
another WG dedicated to this purpose?) were the final arbiter of whether or
not a third party repository could be included in the distribution at all,
and then it would be up to the WGs to decide if and how to ship it. Or, at
the very least, if a single group had some oversight over the entire
process even if they did not have to approve each and every third party
Skimming through the discussion on the subject it didn't seem like this
point seemed controversial to anyone else. So maybe other people have
already thought about this and decided it's not a big deal. But I figured
it couldn't hurt to ask.
The culture on the Fedora IRC channels is hostile and unwelcoming. I
recently asked for technical help in #fedora and most of the responses
were insults. I went to #fedora-ops to report the offending user and was
horrified to see that the user is one of the IRC operators. So, I found
the link to the IRC issue tracker
<https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/> in the #fedora channel topic
and reported my experience at
I looked back through past issues on this tracker and found that my
experience was not an isolated incident. The operator who was rude to me
has had many complaints against them over years. Looking at other issues
on the tracker, there are a few other users (I think they're also
operators) who also have years of complaints about their abrasive
behavior. Occasionally, the reports on the tracker mention racist behavior.
Time and time again, the IRC SIG had a meeting about a reported incident
and decided to take no meaningful action against its own
operators/regular users. I think it's clear that the IRC SIG is
incapable of governing itself and needs outside oversight, or the IRC
channel will continue to be a hostile place that reflects poorly on Fedora.
I'm not sure if this is the best place to address this. I found the
Community Working Group wiki page but it seems that group hasn't had a
meeting in 5 years.
#67: Community domain request for fedora-tw.org
Reporter: zerng07 | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: Trademarks | Keywords:
My friend, ID as freedomknight (mail: freedomknight(a)fedoraproject.org ,
real name as 陳貴鑫 Gui-Xin Chen), who is also a Fedora ambassador has had
hosted a local community noncommercial forum titled "Fedora 中文論壇"
which means "Fedora Chinese Forum" for Chinese (Taiwan) (zh-tw) users to
promote, share and to discuss issues on Fedora. He bought the domain name
"fedora-tw.org" about one year more ago, and run a Discourse forum site.
However, I recently found that if we want to run a site with fedora
trademark for a self-purchased domain, we have to contact Council before
we did it. Threfore, we would like to ask for the permission for this
trademark usage hereby.
We used "Fedora Taiwan" logo of Fedora Taiwan community which was made by
design team on the forum to indicate this is a local community site. "This
site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Fedora Project" declaration
was added to the bottom footer of every page to inform the readers. We
will be responsible for all the costs for the domain registration.
Names of the team: Fedora Taiwan community
Name of the person who owns the domain: freedomknight (mail:
freedomknight(a)fedoraproject.org , real name as 陳貴鑫 Gui-Xin Chen)
Services that will be offered through the domain: local community forum
We would like to solve this legal issue sincerely, please help and guide
us what the next step we should do.
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/67>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
Okay, so, after talking with a number of people and thinking for a
while, I think we should go ahead with creating a label that people can
use for things which are done in Fedora, in line with Fedora's basic
mission and values — but not necessarily perfect, and not necessarily
up to our generally high standards all around. See
I remembered the idea I pitched at DevConf several years ago: Fedora
Playground.* This was initially to be a repository for "ugly" RPMs, but
in thinking about it now, I figure: why not make it wider than that (as
a lot of innovation is going to be happening in areas outside of RPM,
anyway)? Let's promote the term as a label for anything new, crazy, pr
exciting that we want to let under our umbrella without diluting our
reputation for high standards.
Unless anyone has objections, I'll create some short descriptive
documentation (which may also contain references to how to get started
easily — like, how to get a Fedora infra cloud instance, etc.), and ask
Fedora Design to make a logo.
* I don't remember if I invented this or if I picked it up from
someone. Let me know if it was you. :)
Fedora Project Leader
Shall we flip around the schedule from last week, and put IRC (and
overall Fedora Friendliness) as the main agenda item, and budget
updates and etc., as followups as time allows? There's one matter of
administration (the fedora-tw domain name request) that we should
handle quickly, too.
PS: I see looking at the action items from last week that I didn't
write the PRD-followup message I said I would. I still will do that. :)
Fedora Project Leader