a fedora council blog?

[Matthew Miller]

In addition to 5tFTW, I've been occassionally posting things like
<http://fedoramagazine.org/lets-talk-about-fedora-project-objectives/>
to Fedora Magazine.

However, the general consensus in Fedora Marketing (of which the
magazine is a branch) is that content there should be on the vast
majority _user_ focused, rather than inward/contributor focused.

I could set up a personal blog (and aggregate it to the planet), but
I've never been a prolific blogger and signs are not pointing to me
becoming one -- I'll probably continue to do a post or two a month (in
addition to 5tFTW, which I think will stay on the Magazine). I was also
talking to Remy, and he was wondering where a good place for _his_
Fedora leadership posts would be.

So, I'm thinking of maybe asking infrastructure to set up a wordpress
site specifically for council members. What do you think? Council
members, would you post to it?


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Haïkel]

+1 if we want an effective leadership, we need more (and better) communication.

By definition, council is supposed to be the leadership body of the project, so
it should reach not only the contributors but also outsiders.
It also helps to get more visibility on how the council acts.

btw, I would love to see a "Fedora Council status" session at Flock,
as Fesco usually do.
And a good occasion for some Q/A with contributors.

Regards,
H.

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Haïkel <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  +1 if we want an effective leadership, we need more (and better)
> communication.
>
>  By definition, council is supposed to be the leadership body of the project, so
>  it should reach not only the contributors but also outsiders.
>  It also helps to get more visibility on how the council acts.
>
>  btw, I would love to see a "Fedora Council status" session at Flock,
>  as Fesco usually do.
>  And a good occasion for some Q/A with contributors. 
I plan on proposing this.  I'll try to get to it today.

josh

[Haïkel]

2015-04-16 14:17 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  I plan on proposing this.  I'll try to get to it today.
>  
No rush but you get +2 from me :)

>  josh
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
>  In addition to 5tFTW, I've been occassionally posting things
> like
>  <http://fedoramagazine.org/lets-talk-about-fedora-project-objectives/>
>  to Fedora Magazine.
>  
>  However, the general consensus in Fedora Marketing (of which the
>  magazine is a branch) is that content there should be on the vast
>  majority _user_ focused, rather than inward/contributor focused.
>  
>  I could set up a personal blog (and aggregate it to the planet), but
>  I've never been a prolific blogger and signs are not pointing to me
>  becoming one -- I'll probably continue to do a post or two a month (in
>  addition to 5tFTW, which I think will stay on the Magazine). I was also
>  talking to Remy, and he was wondering where a good place for _his_
>  Fedora leadership posts would be.
>  
>  So, I'm thinking of maybe asking infrastructure to set up a wordpress
>  site specifically for council members. What do you think? Council
>  members, would you post to it? 
Long time ago at Board times, we had WP instance maintained by infra but
it did not survive infra clean up. With Mizmo (it was mostly her, 
sometimes me) we tried to do the meeting minutes there. And I'm willing
to do it again. Just we need the place for it.

Jaroslav
 
>  
>  --
>  Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Fedora Project Leader
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss

[White, Langdon]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Haïkel <hguemar(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  +1 if we want an effective leadership, we need more (and better)
>  communication.
>
>  By definition, council is supposed to be the leadership body of the
>  project, so
>  it should reach not only the contributors but also outsiders.
>  It also helps to get more visibility on how the council acts.
>
>  I was actually discussing this with ryan lerch a few weeks ago. General 
contributor
stuff on a separate blog might be a great thing. However, I am
not sure it should be limited to just council content. I would say, let's
stand it up and make the council members editors/approvers as well as
authors and seek any contributor-focused content from the community.

I would also argue that we might want to consider a "planet" (read:
aggregator) for Fedora Magazine & Fedora Contributor to allow people to
consume them both. Why not just use the existing planet you might ask?
Because the volume of content on there is so high these two feeds might be
lost.

And finally, I think ff.home (or whatever it is called) should have the
option to include both feeds. ff.home has done huge things for the magazine
readership, and the contributor one would be starting at 0, any bump would
help a lot.

In general, +1.

Langdon




>  btw, I would love to see a "Fedora Council status" session
> at Flock,
>  as Fesco usually do.
>  And a good occasion for some Q/A with contributors.
>
>  Regards,
>  H.
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
>

[Máirín Duffy]

Hi Langdon,

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:51 AM, White, Langdon 
<langdon(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  And finally, I think ff.home (or whatever it is called) should have 
>  the option to include both feeds. ff.home has done huge things for 
>  the magazine readership, and the contributor one would be starting at 
>  0, any bump would help a lot. 
I'm really confused here - what is ff.home?

~m

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Máirín Duffy <duffy(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  Hi Langdon,
>
>  On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:51 AM, White, Langdon <langdon(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  wrote:
>
>  And finally, I think ff.home (or whatever it is called) should have the
>  option to include both feeds. ff.home has done huge things for the magazine
>  readership, and the contributor one would be starting at 0, any bump would
>  help a lot.
>
>
>  I'm really confused here - what is ff.home? 
Yeah, same question.  I thought Langdon might have made a cognitive
leap from the two-channel planet to calling it ff.home, but I can't
map that term to that thing.

Langdon, what is this ff.home of which you speak?

josh

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:12:57AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  Yeah, same question.  I thought Langdon might have made a cognitive
>  leap from the two-channel planet to calling it ff.home, but I can't
>  map that term to that thing.
>  Langdon, what is this ff.home of which you speak? 
I'm guessing http://start.fedoraproject.org/?


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Máirín Duffy]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Matthew Miller 
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  I'm guessing http://start.fedoraproject.org/? 
OHHHHHHHHHHHH

firefox:home :)

~m

[White, Langdon]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Máirín Duffy <duffy(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
wrote:

>  On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  wrote:
>
>  I'm guessing http://start.fedoraproject.org/?
>
>
>  OHHHHHHHHHHHH
>
>  firefox:home :)
>
>  
yes, sorry, was on the bus and blanked on the name of the actual site
(Firefox Default homepage ~= ff.home :) )

langdon


>  ~m
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
>

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 16 April 2015 at 05:54, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  In addition to 5tFTW, I've been occassionally posting things
> like
>  <http://fedoramagazine.org/lets-talk-about-fedora-project-objectives/>
>  to Fedora Magazine.
>
>  However, the general consensus in Fedora Marketing (of which the
>  magazine is a branch) is that content there should be on the vast
>  majority _user_ focused, rather than inward/contributor focused.
>
>  I could set up a personal blog (and aggregate it to the planet), but
>  I've never been a prolific blogger and signs are not pointing to me
>  becoming one -- I'll probably continue to do a post or two a month (in
>  addition to 5tFTW, which I think will stay on the Magazine). I was also
>  talking to Remy, and he was wondering where a good place for _his_
>  Fedora leadership posts would be.
>
>  So, I'm thinking of maybe asking infrastructure to set up a wordpress
>  site specifically for council members. What do you think? Council
>  members, would you post to it?
>
>  
Hi guys.

I am speaking as myself and not infrastructure.

Infrastructure had this in place once before. It was a logistics nightmare
and none of the parties involved were happy with the service , plugins
available, security updates, spam filtering, and themes.

After a short while, it was determined that anything wordpress related was
better run at an opensource friendly company which specialized in blogging
software versus running it ourselves. If a blog setup is required, I would
think that looking towards wordpress.com or similar would be a better long
term solution.



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:16:12 -0600
Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Hi guys.
>  
>  I am speaking as myself and not infrastructure.
>  
>  Infrastructure had this in place once before. It was a logistics
>  nightmare and none of the parties involved were happy with the
>  service , plugins available, security updates, spam filtering, and
>  themes.
>  
>  After a short while, it was determined that anything wordpress
>  related was better run at an opensource friendly company which
>  specialized in blogging software versus running it ourselves. If a
>  blog setup is required, I would think that looking towards
>  wordpress.com or similar would be a better long term solution. 
Right, as smooge says there was once a wordpress-mu setup in
infrastructure. However, people really didn't use it much at all and it
was a pain to keep going with security updates, plugins, etc, etc. 

So, we retired it and suggested people should move to wordpress.com as
they were open source and friendly and did this for a living. 

However, it seems like instead folks have moved to hosting their own
stuff in openshift. Which is fine, but it means things are spread out
with everyone maintaining their own instances, etc. 

Perhaps we should gather stakeholders and see what makes more sense
moving forward? Perhaps we could approach wordpress.com and ask them
for some N sites? Or if people are really using them and we have a
strong group of maintainers we could look at hosting them in
infrastructure again. Or I suppose we could just leave it with everyone
hosting their own stuff in openshift. 

kevin

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:52:07AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > After a short while, it was determined that anything wordpress
>  > related was better run at an opensource friendly company which
>  > specialized in blogging software versus running it ourselves. If a 
[...]
>  Right, as smooge says there was once a wordpress-mu setup in
>  infrastructure. However, people really didn't use it much at all and it
>  was a pain to keep going with security updates, plugins, etc, etc. 
>  So, we retired it and suggested people should move to wordpress.com as
>  they were open source and friendly and did this for a living.  
This makes sense to me, but contradicts what Paul said. :)

Can we do everything we're doing on fedoramagazine.org that way? Not
that we _have_ to do them both the same, but it kind of makes sense to
consolidate.



>  Perhaps we should gather stakeholders and see what makes more sense
>  moving forward? Perhaps we could approach wordpress.com and ask them
>  for some N sites? Or if people are really using them and we have a
>  strong group of maintainers we could look at hosting them in
>  infrastructure again.  
Yeah that seems like a good approach.


>  Or I suppose we could just leave it with everyone
>  hosting their own stuff in openshift.  
We do happen to know some openshift experts around. :)

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 16 April 2015 at 17:03, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:52:07AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > > After a short while, it was determined that anything wordpress
>  > > related was better run at an opensource friendly company which
>  > > specialized in blogging software versus running it ourselves. If a
>  [...]
>  > Right, as smooge says there was once a wordpress-mu setup in
>  > infrastructure. However, people really didn't use it much at all and it
>  > was a pain to keep going with security updates, plugins, etc, etc.
>  > So, we retired it and suggested people should move to wordpress.com as
>  > they were open source and friendly and did this for a living.
>
>  This makes sense to me, but contradicts what Paul said. :)
>
>  Can we do everything we're doing on fedoramagazine.org that way? Not
>  that we _have_ to do them both the same, but it kind of makes sense to
>  consolidate.
>
>
>  
So infrastructure does not run that in any shape or form. We have no access
to it and it was setup and is administered by other people. All we do is
forward http/https through our proxies to the openshift servers it is on.
If that is what you would like, we can do the proxy to whatever someone
sets up in openshift.




>  > Perhaps we should gather stakeholders and see what makes more sense
>  > moving forward? Perhaps we could approach wordpress.com and ask them
>  > for some N sites? Or if people are really using them and we have a
>  > strong group of maintainers we could look at hosting them in
>  > infrastructure again.
>
>  Yeah that seems like a good approach.
>
>
>  > Or I suppose we could just leave it with everyone
>  > hosting their own stuff in openshift.
>
>  We do happen to know some openshift experts around. :)
>
>  --
>  Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Fedora Project Leader
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
>  


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 19:03:31 -0400
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:52:07AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > > After a short while, it was determined that anything wordpress
>  > > related was better run at an opensource friendly company which
>  > > specialized in blogging software versus running it ourselves. If a
>  [...]
>  > Right, as smooge says there was once a wordpress-mu setup in
>  > infrastructure. However, people really didn't use it much at all
>  > and it was a pain to keep going with security updates, plugins,
>  > etc, etc. So, we retired it and suggested people should move to
>  > wordpress.com as they were open source and friendly and did this
>  > for a living. 
>  
>  This makes sense to me, but contradicts what Paul said. :) 
Hum, I don't see what he said in this thread. Or was it somewhere else?

>  Can we do everything we're doing on fedoramagazine.org that way?
> Not
>  that we _have_ to do them both the same, but it kind of makes sense to
>  consolidate. 
You mean have fedoramagazine.org and a fedoracouncil.org blogs in the
same openshift instance? I think so, but I have not tried it. 

Note that for fedoramagazine, we proxy those requests. They hit our
proxy setup (and are cached) and then go to the wordpress site on the
backend. This was orig setup because it was the only way we could do
ssl / https for it. (which there is actually no need for really
anymore). 

>  > Perhaps we should gather stakeholders and see what makes more
> sense
>  > moving forward? Perhaps we could approach wordpress.com and ask them
>  > for some N sites? Or if people are really using them and we have a
>  > strong group of maintainers we could look at hosting them in
>  > infrastructure again. 
>  
>  Yeah that seems like a good approach. 
ok. Will see about trying to gather people on the infra list or have a
one off meeting or something. 

>  > Or I suppose we could just leave it with everyone
>  > hosting their own stuff in openshift. 
>  
>  We do happen to know some openshift experts around. :) 
Indeed. 

kevin

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:13:22PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > This makes sense to me, but contradicts what Paul said. :)
>  Hum, I don't see what he said in this thread. Or was it somewhere else? 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/marketing/2015-March/017176.html

>  > Can we do everything we're doing on fedoramagazine.org that
> way? Not
>  > that we _have_ to do them both the same, but it kind of makes sense to
>  > consolidate.
>  You mean have fedoramagazine.org and a fedoracouncil.org blogs in the
>  same openshift instance? I think so, but I have not tried it.  
Well, what I meant was having both of those on wordpress.com, with the
functionality Ryan needs for the theme and workflow stuff he's doing
for the magazine.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[White, Langdon]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
wrote:

>  On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:13:22PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > > This makes sense to me, but contradicts what Paul said. :)
>  > Hum, I don't see what he said in this thread. Or was it somewhere else?
>
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/marketing/2015-March/017176.html
>
>  > > Can we do everything we're doing on fedoramagazine.org that way? Not
>  > > that we _have_ to do them both the same, but it kind of makes sense to
>  > > consolidate.
>  > You mean have fedoramagazine.org and a fedoracouncil.org blogs in the
>  > same openshift instance? I think so, but I have not tried it.
>
>  Well, what I meant was having both of those on wordpress.com, with the
>  functionality Ryan needs for the theme and workflow stuff he's doing
>  for the magazine.
>
>
>  
So.. I am not sure of the appropriate place to discuss the tech aspects of
this scenario, but, WP has finally gotten with the times and does support
multiple sites within one install. One can also support different "areas"
of content. I think there are a few problems that need to be resolved:
1) what is the actual goal
a) create multiple sites to channel users?
b) only present users with content relevant to their profile?
c) should users be able to pick and choose the relevant content for them?
d) should the users be guided to the "right" content?
e) can users get to "special" content some how? (like is any of the content
not for general consumption?)

2) what is the infra difficulty?
a) do the maintainers have sufficient tech expertise to do the work? What
is the impact of an outage? What level of uptime is required?
b) how much content are we talking?
c) how much money is available to spend?

Personally, I would much rather see the answers to the questions above (and
the others I didn't think of) before trying to design a solution. For
example, wouldn't it be "better" to magically know which content was
relevant to which user types? then allow them to add categories that they
might enjoy? or remove ones they don't find relevant? Rather than splitting
the blog? That seems like a perfectly, technically solvable problem.
However, perhaps not, maybe it is important that contributors feel like
they are in the "in crowd" with a "special" blog (not hidden content
or
anything), which shows their picture next to comments, allows for comments
and trending, etc because they are "logged in" and has super cool hot dog
related branding. I wouldn't know which of those to recommend without
knowing about the above questions.

Just some thoughts...

and, btw, massive +1 for SaaS model deployments (a la wp.com), however, it
comes with limitations on functionality, which.... see above :)


>  --
>  Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Fedora Project Leader
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
>

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 20:15:56 -0400
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 05:13:22PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > > This makes sense to me, but contradicts what Paul said. :)
>  > Hum, I don't see what he said in this thread. Or was it somewhere
>  > else?
>  
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/marketing/2015-March/017176.html 
Ah, ok. 

One thing to note is that back when we had wordpress in fedora
infrastructure, it was back when they had a special 'wordpress-mu'
branch for multiuser stuff. This branch also couldn't use many of the
same things that the regular one could and was updated differently,
etc. 

These days there's just wordpress and you can set it up with multiple
sites, etc. So, any common install with multiple sites is likely a lot
easier than it was then. 
>  
>  > > Can we do everything we're doing on fedoramagazine.org that way?
>  > > Not that we _have_ to do them both the same, but it kind of makes
>  > > sense to consolidate.
>  > You mean have fedoramagazine.org and a fedoracouncil.org blogs in
>  > the same openshift instance? I think so, but I have not tried it. 
>  
>  Well, what I meant was having both of those on wordpress.com, with the
>  functionality Ryan needs for the theme and workflow stuff he's doing
>  for the magazine. 
If we can do that, I think that might be ideal, as then wordpress.com
will be on the hook to keep up with security updates and other stuff
that content folks don't want to have to deal with. 

kevin

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 16 April 2015 at 19:04, White, Langdon <langdon(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  2) what is the infra difficulty?
>  a) do the maintainers have sufficient tech expertise to do the work? What
>  is the impact of an outage? What level of uptime is required?
>  b) how much content are we talking?
>  c) how much money is available to spend?
>
>  
Infrastructures difficulty is that if we run a service, we are expected by
its consumers to be subject matter experts in everything from layout and
plugins to account moderation.  We are not experts in PHP or in wordpress
and  by the time we have gotten to know it, we are being asked to move to
the next version of wordpress which seems to be completely different in
what it wants to do. This may be better in current versions, but I don't
know. [While this is core part of systems administration, we have ~100
changing services which we are supposed to be also subject matter experts
at the same time. Wordpress was considered to be something that would be
better run by people who do it day and day out versus when we get to it.]

Outages for blogs usually only affect services which tie into the blog...
which in the past ended up being something that another team had put in
place that we were not aware of. Usually nothing software production
related but that does not make it any easier for the ambassadors at a show
who can't use getfedora or start for some reason linked to the down
service. Levels of uptime are not something we have defined that I know of.

The amount of content is probably not going to be much. In the previous
blogs the majority of the content was I believe to be found to be comment
spam or FEDORA SUCKS USE XYZ spam.

Infrastructure has no funding for running a service outside of
infrastructure. Any such funding would need to come from whatever amounts
the Council could allocate.





>  Personally, I would much rather see the answers to the questions
> above
>  (and the others I didn't think of) before trying to design a solution. For
>  example, wouldn't it be "better" to magically know which content was
>  relevant to which user types? then allow them to add categories that they
>  might enjoy? or remove ones they don't find relevant? Rather than splitting
>  the blog? That seems like a perfectly, technically solvable problem.
>  However, perhaps not, maybe it is important that contributors feel like
>  they are in the "in crowd" with a "special" blog (not hidden content
> or
>  anything), which shows their picture next to comments, allows for comments
>  and trending, etc because they are "logged in" and has super cool hot dog
>  related branding. I wouldn't know which of those to recommend without
>  knowing about the above questions.
>
>  Just some thoughts...
>
>  and, btw, massive +1 for SaaS model deployments (a la wp.com), however,
>  it comes with limitations on functionality, which.... see above :)
>
>
> > --
> > Matthew Miller
> > <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> > Fedora Project Leader
> > _______________________________________________
> > council-discuss mailing list
> > council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
> >
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list
>  council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/council-discuss
>  


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.