Bikeshedding on the name welcome, but here's the concept:
Right now, we have the main Fedora brand, which as the guidelines stand generally applies to the main Fedora operating system distribution and to our core activities. And we have the Fedora Remix brand, which is very clearly for work _outside_ of Fedora Proper.
I think we might benefit from having an official branding for initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether something is "official".
What do you think?
IMHO I think we already do an developer portal, where would be good idea to separate them, marking the projects within the "Fedora Hosted" kind of page as mainline and outer projects. I think listing startup projects, new ideas, looking for contributors openly, and see activities in a single page would be a great idea to involve and produce activity. Just separating IMHO can't be enough.
Z
2016-04-28 17:02 GMT+02:00 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org:
Bikeshedding on the name welcome, but here's the concept:
Right now, we have the main Fedora brand, which as the guidelines stand generally applies to the main Fedora operating system distribution and to our core activities. And we have the Fedora Remix brand, which is very clearly for work _outside_ of Fedora Proper.
I think we might benefit from having an official branding for initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether something is "official".
What do you think?
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproje...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
On 04/28/2016 11:02 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we might benefit from having an official branding for initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether something is "official".
1) would this create confusion with something like the Apache Incubator, which is well-defined but not well-understood outside Apache circles?
2) I like the idea, but an example project might help illustrate here.
3) What are the criteria for "graduating"? Who are the mentors in this example? (Mentors are a key part of the incubator for Apache.)
Best,
jzb
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/28/2016 11:02 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we might benefit from having an official branding for initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether something is "official".
- would this create confusion with something like the Apache Incubator,
which is well-defined but not well-understood outside Apache circles?
IMO, no.
- I like the idea, but an example project might help illustrate here.
Agreed, though I have some of my own ideas.
- What are the criteria for "graduating"? Who are the mentors in this
example? (Mentors are a key part of the incubator for Apache.)
Do projects have to graduate? I don't want this to be viewed as a competition between initiatives, and promotion/relegaion/graduation seem to set a competitive tone. As soon as you start talking about graduation or promotion, you start getting into resource allocation issues, etc.
I'd personally be fine if a project joined the incubator and stayed there. If they wanted to somehow because an Objective, we already have paths for that.
josh
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 03:45:31PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
- What are the criteria for "graduating"? Who are the mentors in this
example? (Mentors are a key part of the incubator for Apache.)
Do projects have to graduate? I don't want this to be viewed as a competition between initiatives, and promotion/relegaion/graduation seem to set a competitive tone. As soon as you start talking about graduation or promotion, you start getting into resource allocation issues, etc.
Yeah, excellent point.
I'd personally be fine if a project joined the incubator and stayed there. If they wanted to somehow because an Objective, we already have paths for that.
I agree. Which I guess means "incubator" is the wrong word.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/28/2016 11:02 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we might benefit from having an official branding for initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether something is "official".
- would this create confusion with something like the Apache Incubator,
which is well-defined but not well-understood outside Apache circles?
I like the idea, but an example project might help illustrate here.
What are the criteria for "graduating"?
This is a very good question, same as I asked when we were talking about labs projects some time ago. It doesn't make any sense to try to work on "labs"/"incubator" project if there's no way how to graduate to official product/project/flavor/whatever you call it. Currently we have strict set of the only official flavors and it's impossible to graduate to one even you have everything the other have, even more, we tried in KDE SIG :). Or vice versa - downgrade to incubator...
Jaroslav
Who are the mentors in this example? (Mentors are a key part of the incubator for Apache.)
Best,
jzb
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS jzb@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproje...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
On 04/29/2016 03:47 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:19 PM, Joe Brockmeier jzb@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/28/2016 11:02 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think we might benefit from having an official branding for initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether something is "official".
- would this create confusion with something like the Apache Incubator,
which is well-defined but not well-understood outside Apache circles?
I like the idea, but an example project might help illustrate here.
What are the criteria for "graduating"?
This is a very good question, same as I asked when we were talking about labs projects some time ago. It doesn't make any sense to try to work on "labs"/"incubator" project if there's no way how to graduate to official product/project/flavor/whatever you call it. Currently we have strict set of the only official flavors and it's impossible to graduate to one even you have everything the other have, even more, we tried in KDE SIG :). Or vice versa - downgrade to incubator...
At the risk of derailing this thread, KDE SIG was told that the criteria for a new top-level Edition in Fedora was that it had to serve a new "market segment". Plasma Edition had almost a 100% overlap with the Workstation Edition and would have therefore been in direct competition.
If instead you built a new product *atop* Plasma, it could still be promoted. (Off-the-cuff examples: a Fedora Home Automation Suite, Fedora TV Set-Top Box or Fedora Cellphone using Plasma as the operating environment).
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:02:42 -0400 Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Bikeshedding on the name welcome, but here's the concept:
Right now, we have the main Fedora brand, which as the guidelines stand generally applies to the main Fedora operating system distribution and to our core activities. And we have the Fedora Remix brand, which is very clearly for work _outside_ of Fedora Proper.
I think we might benefit from having an official branding for initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether something is "official".
What do you think?
Might be worth doing. There's something we have been discussing in infrastructure that seems related to this: namely how we communicate the support level or 'officialness' of a service.
The current proposal is to use domain names to do this, ie, if it's fedoraproject.org it's a fully supported official service, if it's fedorainfracloud its less official and supported, and if it's fedoracommunity.org it's something that the community is providing with no particular support. There would likely be some other domains involved, but this would allow us to use our current RFR (request for resources) process for "official" services, but allow other services to use other processes that are lower barrier, etc.
Then if later some fedoracommunity service turned out popular/useful, it could graduate to a fully supported service, or in turn some currently official service could move out to a fedoracommunity service and if no one helped support it eventually go away.
kevin
On 28/04/16 10:02, Matthew Miller wrote:
Bikeshedding on the name welcome, but here's the concept:
Right now, we have the main Fedora brand, which as the guidelines stand generally applies to the main Fedora operating system distribution and to our core activities. And we have the Fedora Remix brand, which is very clearly for work _outside_ of Fedora Proper.
I think we might benefit from having an official branding for initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether something is "official".
What do you think?
Would that give initiatives a home, which are currently not really allowed in Fedora, like (just to name a few)
- pidora - packaging initiatives, with stuff e.g in copr or which are not currently accepted in fedora repositories? - building a robot and providing software for it based on fedora (I mean, including everything, not only the software packages, but also building instructions etc: this clearly outside of being software
Do you mean like that?
Best, Matthias
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Matthias Runge mrunge@matthias-runge.de wrote:
On 28/04/16 10:02, Matthew Miller wrote:
Bikeshedding on the name welcome, but here's the concept:
Right now, we have the main Fedora brand, which as the guidelines stand generally applies to the main Fedora operating system distribution and to our core activities. And we have the Fedora Remix brand, which is very clearly for work _outside_ of Fedora Proper.
I think we might benefit from having an official branding for initiatives somewhere in between — work done *in* the project, but not necessarily yet accepted into our "mainline". This would encourage innovation _within_ Fedora without causing confusion over whether something is "official".
What do you think?
Would that give initiatives a home, which are currently not really allowed in Fedora, like (just to name a few)
My personal take on your examples below.
- pidora
This one is probably not a good example. It's too large to leverage the resources we have (it's an entirely separate arch) and it depends on code that is not upstream.
- packaging initiatives, with stuff e.g in copr or which are not
currently accepted in fedora repositories?
Possibly? The standard issues around the ever present codec situations would still apply, so it won't solve that. It could be useful for other things.
- building a robot and providing software for it based on fedora (I
mean, including everything, not only the software packages, but also building instructions etc: this clearly outside of being software
Neat!
josh
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jaroslav Reznik -
Joe Brockmeier -
Josh Boyer -
Kevin Fenzi -
Matthew Miller -
Matthias Runge -
Stephen Gallagher -
Zoltan Hoppar