On 6/12/20 2:04 AM, jean-baptiste(a)holcroft.fr wrote:
This proposal may looks like a good idea, but as it is written it is
What troubles me is: what defines Fedora interest?
First scenario: Let's say the government of the country where our main sponsors has
its headquarters decide to stop relationship with one or many other countries.
Council may say it is not in Fedora's interest to go there, while the event itself
have nothing wrong about it.
Second scenario: a contributor helps a movement that fights against its own government,
and decide to hold a boot/workshop/etc.
How do you define Fedora interest here?
Fedora should be own by its community with as much support as possible for local
initiatives. Adding a rules like this without open evaluation criterias gives a bad
Even if council is based on elected and nominated member to represents us, it doesn't
council member wont always be good and without any external influences.
Hey Jean-Baptiste, I agree evaluation criteria could be better scoped.
But I think there is a balance between too-defined and too-broad. We
cannot predict every possible scenario that will happen.
These types of problems are not like code; they involve real-life people
and communities. We cannot "compile" a policy into a clean package like
a binary :) So, on one hand, defining the criteria can be helpful for
transparency. But on the other hand, I think over-defining the criteria
is not helpful. If a controversial situation comes up and the documented
criteria does not capture it, we will probably end up with a similar
situation to SELF anyways.
I also want to bring attention to this line:
"Fedora should be own by its community"
I understand the motive behind this. I want to believe it too. :) But I
feel like this is a myth we sometimes believe in the Fedora Community.
Fedora's trademark, brand, and identity (not code) are owned by Red Hat
as far as an Intellectual Property lawyer or a judiciary is concerned.
Ask any non-RH Fedora community member that has ever had to interact
with Red Hat's legal team about anything Fedora.
I think we must be direct and address the elephant in the room: Red Hat
is the ultimate fiscal and legal sponsor of the Fedora Project. This
includes funding, providing salaries for people to work on Fedora, and
So, I feel like it is a myth that Fedora should be owned by the
community, because really it isn't. This isn't bad or something I think
we should be ashamed of, and it does *not* mean the Council should not
listen or include the Community in decision-making.
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.
Justin W. Flory (he/him)