3:26 a.m.
Hi all,
<humor, with a serious undertone>
Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out of touch
with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the following guideline
for rulemakers:
Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must actively
maintain atleast 30 packages.
Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that which is
regulated oneself?
</humor>
Regards,
Hans
3:34 a.m.
Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
<humor, with a serious undertone>
Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out
of touch with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the
following guideline for rulemakers:
Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must actively
maintain atleast 30 packages.
Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that which is
regulated oneself?
</humor>
Packaging guidelines also cover licensing details which isn't connected
to workflow. There are several other policies within the guidelines
which involve some amount of politics (kernel modules anyone?). This
rule would mean that everybody who proposes any drafts, folks in the
packaging committee and FESCo would have to maintain 30 packages.
Rahul
7:30 p.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> <humor, with a serious undertone>
>
> Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out
> of touch with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the
> following guideline for rulemakers:
>
> Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must
> actively maintain atleast 30 packages.
>
> Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that which
> is regulated oneself?
>
> </humor>
Packaging guidelines also cover licensing details which isn't connected
to workflow. There are several other policies within the guidelines
which involve some amount of politics (kernel modules anyone?). This
rule would mean that everybody who proposes any drafts, folks in the
packaging committee and FESCo would have to maintain 30 packages.
Yes it would, and that would be a good thing! Let the people building the
distro decide how it is build! As for licensing issues, since RH is paying
mosts of the bills at the end RH decided what is okay licensing wise, and to me
they have earned that right, because "paying the bills" == "building the
distro"
Regards,
Hans
8:20 p.m.
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 02:30 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> <humor, with a serious undertone>
>>
>> Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out
>> of touch with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the
>> following guideline for rulemakers:
>>
>> Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must
>> actively maintain atleast 30 packages.
>>
>> Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that which
>> is regulated oneself?
>>
>> </humor>
>
> Packaging guidelines also cover licensing details which isn't connected
> to workflow. There are several other policies within the guidelines
> which involve some amount of politics (kernel modules anyone?). This
> rule would mean that everybody who proposes any drafts, folks in the
> packaging committee and FESCo would have to maintain 30 packages.
>
Yes it would, and that would be a good thing! Let the people building the
distro decide how it is build! As for licensing issues, since RH is paying
mosts of the bills at the end RH decided what is okay licensing wise, and to me
they have earned that right, because "paying the bills" == "building the
distro"
I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying here, so I'll ask you
straight out.
Are you suggesting that because I do not maintain 30 packages I am
unqualified to be a member of FESCo?
Should I go out and submit about 20 more packages that I'll never use
myself just to inflate my statistics and make myself eligible?
I could counter your proposal with "only people who have managed x
distro releases can be in FESCo". Or "only people who have written test
cases for 30 packages can be in FESCo". Or "only people who have
debugged problems on all architectures can be in FESCo". Or "only
people who have translated for 30 packages can be in FESCo".
Seriously, I understand where you are coming from but your blanket
qualification is lacking. There is more to making Fedora than
maintaining a number of packages. To suggest others are unqualified
because they do not maintain a large number of packages is both naive
and insulting.
josh
11:07 p.m.
Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 02:30 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> <humor, with a serious undertone>
>>>
>>> Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out
>>> of touch with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the
>>> following guideline for rulemakers:
>>>
>>> Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must
>>> actively maintain atleast 30 packages.
>>>
>>> Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that which
>>> is regulated oneself?
>>>
>>> </humor>
>> Packaging guidelines also cover licensing details which isn't connected
>> to workflow. There are several other policies within the guidelines
>> which involve some amount of politics (kernel modules anyone?). This
>> rule would mean that everybody who proposes any drafts, folks in the
>> packaging committee and FESCo would have to maintain 30 packages.
>>
> Yes it would, and that would be a good thing! Let the people building the
> distro decide how it is build! As for licensing issues, since RH is paying
> mosts of the bills at the end RH decided what is okay licensing wise, and to me
> they have earned that right, because "paying the bills" == "building
the distro"
I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying here, so I'll ask you
straight out.
Are you suggesting that because I do not maintain 30 packages I am
unqualified to be a member of FESCo?
Should I go out and submit about 20 more packages that I'll never use
myself just to inflate my statistics and make myself eligible?
I hope you wouldn't have to as well!
My point of view is FESco should be comprised of people from all parts
of the Fedora community.
I think myself and the 90% of people listed in Koji with less than 30
packages would hate to see the 1/8th of the community that have more
running FESco.
To have a community you have to have people from all types of lives, the
rich ones, the middle class ones, and the poor ones (for this analogy
think of packages as a currency), if you have the community run by a set
of people comprising of the 'elitist rich people' then you loose the
'poor people' and possibly some of the 'middle class people'. If you
have the community run by the poor people, the 'rich people' loose
interest and basically kill off the community once again. For a
community to work properly we need people from all 'social statuses'.
Now for some figures (these are rough, I'm too lazy to count exactly):
~40-45 packagers owning 30+ SRPMS (10.5%)
~100 packagers owning 10-29 SRPMS (25%)
~70 packagers owning 5-9 SRPMS (17%)
~190 packagers owning 1-4 SRPMS (46%)
~15-20 packagers owning 0 SRPMS (0.5%)
(There is 1% missing over the general spread due to rounding and estimates)
As one of the people in the 5-9 SRPMS bracket, I'm happy with the
current changes, *BUT* I'm looking forward to when the tools are united
under 'packagedb' which I hope will happen. I wish some changes didn't
happen just before the release, but the overall effect seems good so far.
N.J.
3:20 a.m.
Nigel Jones wrote:
Now for some figures (these are rough, I'm too lazy to count exactly):
~40-45 packagers owning 30+ SRPMS (10.5%)
~100 packagers owning 10-29 SRPMS (25%)
~70 packagers owning 5-9 SRPMS (17%)
~190 packagers owning 1-4 SRPMS (46%)
~15-20 packagers owning 0 SRPMS (0.5%)
(There is 1% missing over the general spread due to rounding and estimates)
I do not want to really go here, but if you want todo this in a fair way, try
making numbers how many % of the total number of packages is maintained by
which group.
Regards,
Hans
3:38 a.m.
Le dimanche 03 juin 2007 à 10:20 +0200, Hans de Goede a écrit :
Nigel Jones wrote:
>
> Now for some figures (these are rough, I'm too lazy to count exactly):
> ~40-45 packagers owning 30+ SRPMS (10.5%)
> ~100 packagers owning 10-29 SRPMS (25%)
> ~70 packagers owning 5-9 SRPMS (17%)
> ~190 packagers owning 1-4 SRPMS (46%)
> ~15-20 packagers owning 0 SRPMS (0.5%)
> (There is 1% missing over the general spread due to rounding and estimates)
>
I do not want to really go here, but if you want todo this in a fair way, try
making numbers how many % of the total number of packages is maintained by
which group.
And then you can weight the packages by popularity/usefulness, so people
who maintain huge perl collections most people wouldn't care less about
do not get an undue bonus
One guy/gal = one vote is not a perfect rule, but at least it's an
honest one with no special bias (like you get when you start down the
weighted votes path)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
3:23 a.m.
Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 02:30 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> <humor, with a serious undertone>
>>>
>>> Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out
>>> of touch with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the
>>> following guideline for rulemakers:
>>>
>>> Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must
>>> actively maintain atleast 30 packages.
>>>
>>> Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that which
>>> is regulated oneself?
>>>
>>> </humor>
>> Packaging guidelines also cover licensing details which isn't connected
>> to workflow. There are several other policies within the guidelines
>> which involve some amount of politics (kernel modules anyone?). This
>> rule would mean that everybody who proposes any drafts, folks in the
>> packaging committee and FESCo would have to maintain 30 packages.
>>
> Yes it would, and that would be a good thing! Let the people building the
> distro decide how it is build! As for licensing issues, since RH is paying
> mosts of the bills at the end RH decided what is okay licensing wise, and to me
> they have earned that right, because "paying the bills" == "building
the distro"
I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying here, so I'll ask you
straight out.
Are you suggesting that because I do not maintain 30 packages I am
unqualified to be a member of FESCo?
You're taking me to serious here, notice the <humor> at the top of the original
post. I've no intention to actually try and instantiate such a rule. I'm
however woried that there seems to be a growing drift between the rule makers
within Fedora and those running the primary process.
Regards,
Hans
7:03 a.m.
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:23 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 02:30 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> <humor, with a serious undertone>
>>>>
>>>> Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out
>>>> of touch with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the
>>>> following guideline for rulemakers:
>>>>
>>>> Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must
>>>> actively maintain atleast 30 packages.
>>>>
>>>> Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that
which
>>>> is regulated oneself?
>>>>
>>>> </humor>
>>> Packaging guidelines also cover licensing details which isn't connected
>>> to workflow. There are several other policies within the guidelines
>>> which involve some amount of politics (kernel modules anyone?). This
>>> rule would mean that everybody who proposes any drafts, folks in the
>>> packaging committee and FESCo would have to maintain 30 packages.
>>>
>> Yes it would, and that would be a good thing! Let the people building the
>> distro decide how it is build! As for licensing issues, since RH is paying
>> mosts of the bills at the end RH decided what is okay licensing wise, and to me
>> they have earned that right, because "paying the bills" ==
"building the distro"
>
> I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying here, so I'll ask you
> straight out.
>
> Are you suggesting that because I do not maintain 30 packages I am
> unqualified to be a member of FESCo?
>
You're taking me to serious here, notice the <humor> at the top of the original
post.
Well, you had ended the </humor> before the suggestion so I wasn't
sure :).
I've no intention to actually try and instantiate such a rule.
I'm
however woried that there seems to be a growing drift between the rule makers
within Fedora and those running the primary process.
I see. That is a valid concern, and one which I believe everyone wants
to address now that F7 is out and people aren't running and screaming
about getting it done :)
josh
4:06 a.m.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:26:09AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
I don't know exactly what should be done, and maybe this is only a
temporary issue, but in my opinion we've lost some of the simplicity
and community smell of extras during the merge. Taking my example, in
the past I had never had a will to look at what the infrastructure team
was doing because it always seemed to me that they always did everything
to make me productive. plague, for example was a change for a better,
using bugzilla instead of mail for submission (after some
reorganization). Now every innovation seems to add more burden to my
work. Sometime after many screams of some community members (almost
always the same people) things ameliorate but it is always in an
opposition even on things that are evidently getting in our way.
I don't know exactly what is going wrong. Maybe it is just that I am
less adapted to doing a distro with all the constraints, and I better
fit in environment where it is assumed that I am working for a niche.
Maybe it is an issue about who is deciding now and that the objectives
are different now, and it leads to more burden because of that -- while
there is gain for some kind of users that are typically not those I
target. Maybe it is that balance was lost in FESCO/FAB.
--
Pat
1:33 a.m.
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:26:09AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
<humor, with a serious undertone>
Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out of
touch with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the following
guideline for rulemakers:
Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must actively
maintain atleast 30 packages.
with my FPC hat on: Are there any recent packaging guidelines that
make you say that? I don't agree with everything that passes, but it
isn't that crappy either.
Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that
which is
regulated oneself?
There's a lot of truth in this. But unfortunately that's the classical
issue of management losing touch with reality, and there is no easy
recipe on how to rectify this.
</humor>
I'd say let's raise that bar to `grep goede owners.list | wc -l` :)
That would probably leave only a handful of people, or perhaps only
one ;)
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
6171
days inactive
6172
days old
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Axel Thimm -
Hans de Goede -
Josh Boyer -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Nigel Jones -
Patrice Dumas -
Rahul Sundaram