Hey Ankur :) Thanks for weighing in.
On 6/12/20 1:14 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 12:17:07 -0400, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote:
> But I think it is a reality we need to call out and make clear. Fedora
> is not owned by the Fedora Community. I say this as someone who has only
> ever participated in Fedora as a volunteer community member.
This is not accurate either, Justin. There are two components:
- the trademark, infra, and a majority of tangible assets that the
community relies on owned by Red Hat,
- the work, the ideas, and a large proportion of the non tangible bits
are owned/shared/contributed collectively by the community----this
includes Red Hat employees that we all work together with and are most
I see it the same way too. I am curious though. Where do you frame event
organizing and fiscal support for events between these two components?
I guess I saw event organization and sponsorship as a trademark issue
(and thus, "owned by Red Hat"). If a Red Hat or IBM lawyer (not a
Council member, not an active Fedora Community member) sent an angry
email to the FPL or FCAIC that Fedora *must* back out of an event for
whatever reason or another, Fedora is going to back out of the event.
One way or the other. Some probably disagree with me on this, but it is
the way I see it. (I do not see that as a negative though.)
The question I am centering with this proposal is, how do we navigate
that situation when it happens next? Not if, when. :)
But perhaps I am focusing in on the trademark aspect too much. So, I am
curious where/how you frame event support!
One cannot exist without the other, and the task of the community,
the Council in particular, is to ensure that while following the
regulations that apply to Red Hat, the community is still able to pursue
its social goals and ideals.
> As I keep screaming, mostly in the Fedora Join channels, Fedora = the
people, and then Fedora = the deliverables. If some day in the future,
Red Hat is no longer able to back the community, the people of Fedora
will still exist and I personally think we will be able to continue the
community even if we need to find a new name. (RPMFusion is already an
I agree Fedora is its Community first, in terms of what makes it special
and unique. I also think the Community would find a way to continue if
Red Hat magically decided to pull out of Fedora tomorrow (*not* that
this is something I am remotely worried about right now).
But I know there are Red Hatters and IBMers who won't get it. Not that
they should by default either. It is hard to expect any organization of
352,600+ people to understand what a few thousand folks active in
Fedora know from direct experience. :) And ultimately, regardless of who
is in the position, the FPL, FCAIC, FPgM, and other salaried Fedora
Leadership positions have to report to someone, who reports to someone,
who also probably reports to someone (who most-likely does not
participate in Fedora).
This is a long way of saying, Fedora needs documented processes on how
to facilitate these requests. The proposed policy does that, as I see
it. I think it is more of an assertion that Fedora is not a typical
business unit that works in a typical management hierarchy. Fedora *is*
a Community, Fedora *is* its people, and that is why we need to make
sure that the Community (who often organizes these events) needs to be
consulted and involved in this process too.
As it stands now, if this policy is not passed, I predict a situation
like SELF 2018 will happen again and it will be on the shoulders of some
unlucky soul to figure out how best to deliver the news to the Fedora
 pg. 64, "Employees and Related Workforce":
Justin W. Flory (he/him)