Re: Emerging editions, Fedora 32 Beta, and bureaucracy
by Ben Cotton
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 2:01 PM Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> (many, many words. All of which are reasonable)
>
I, too, have been a little frustrated with the state of Silverblue and
CoreOS. It's not clear to me how much they're supposed to be a part of
the normal Fedora release process and how much they exist in their own
world because of the different nature of the distribution model. To be
clear, I don't blame those teams for this, I have been content the
last 21 months to make that Future Ben's problem. Oh look, Future Ben
has entered the chat. :-) For IoT, I can't make that claim because I
show up in their meetings most week to pester Peter about things. But
even then, I've generally been more reactive than proactive because
it's also a different beast (in some similar and also different ways).
I know Adam is not looking to single out anyone for blame, but I am
stepping forward to claim my share.
In my experience, things that happen rarely in Fedora can fall into
one of two buckets:
1. Subject to an over-engineered policy that will never be tested in
any great depth
2. Have a loose, hand-wavy policy that proves entirely insufficient
This is clearly an instance of the second bucket. Fedora.next was a
great model, but we didn't carry it forward. That may be in part
because we've had two (three?) changes of Program Manager since it
became a thing and knowledge was lost in the multiple transfers.
Independently of this issue, I've been slowly working to improve the
documentation so that my successor will not have to count on me to
remember to tell them things.
But to the matter at hand, as we discussed in the Release Readiness
meeting last week, I will review the historical documentation and see
what I can do to improve the bureaucracy. It may be too late to do
much about the existing emerging editions beyond reacting to the gaps
as we find them, but we can at least make it better for the next
round.
I won't say any more now because I have nothing useful to contribute
yet. I would love to see the discussion continue on this over the next
few weeks.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
4 years, 1 month
IoT name rejection candidates
by Ben Cotton
Hi team,
In preparation for beginning the IoT name voting next week, I have
gone through the suggestions we have so far. I have two groups below.
The first is a set of names we should reject immediately, along with
explanation. These are largely going to be unusable due to potential
legal issues. It will take a lot of arguing for me to not remove them.
The second set are names that I'm questionable about. My inclination
is to remove them too, for the reasons given, but I'm more open to
argument that they should be left on the list.
If I counted correctly, there are currently 31 submissions. Removing
the first set leaves us with 20. Removing the second set leaves us
with 15. That's still a pretty healthy pool to choose from. I'll set
the deadline for feedback on this to 23:59 UTC on Sunday 15 March (the
same as the name submission deadline).
I'll be around the IRC channel on Monday to discuss any last-minute
suggestions. Otherwise, I'll cull the names in this message on Monday
morning (Eastern time).
== Set 1: Reject ==
* Crown - Name of an IoT company: http://www.lcrown.com/en/lcrown/
* Orbit - Name of an existing IoT product:
https://www.iotglobalnetwork.com/products/single/id/444/orbit
* Nookless - May be seen as a reference to the Barnes & Noble Nook e-reader
* NanoBlue - Name of a Bluetooth antenna:
https://www.lairdconnect.com/rf-antennas/bluetooth-antennas/nano-blue-ser...
* Conductor - Name of an existing IoT product:
https://www.link-labs.com/conductor-automated-connectivity-and-data-manag...
* Things - Name of an existing IoT platform: https://thethings.io/
* Light - Name of an existing IoT lighting app: https://www.iot-light.eu/
* Hub - Name of an existing IoT service:
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/iot-hub/
* Altair - Name of an existing company's IoT offering:
https://www.altair.com/iot/
* Compass - Name of an existing IoT company: https://www.compassiot.com.au/
* Coke Machine - Intentional reference to a trademark
== Set 2: Probably reject ==
* Brim - An SAP feature
(https://blogs.sap.com/2015/02/11/welcome-to-sap-brim/). This is
probably in a different enough space to not be a legal issue, but we
might want to leave it aside anyway
* Orchestra - Not IoT-related, but several tech sector conflicts
(https://www.tibco.com/blog/2018/12/04/orchestra-networks-a-holistic-data-...
and https://www.orchestra.it/platform/ for example)
* Wintermute - Not IoT-related, but several tech sector conflicts
(https://cryptoslate.com/blockchain-com-ventures-leads-seed-funding-for-wi...
and https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/08/30/could-this-new-artifici...
for example)
* HAL2020 - Becomes very confusing next year
* FIDO - The FIDO Alliance is focusing on IOT:
https://fidoalliance.org/internet-of-things/
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
4 years, 1 month
Revamping the Release Readiness meeting
by Ben Cotton
(Posting to many mailing lists for visibility. I apologize if you see
this more times than you'd like.)
You may have already seen my Community Blog post[1] about changing the
Release Readiness meeting process. The meeting has questionable value
in the current state, so I want to make it more useful. We'll do this
by having teams self-report readiness issues on a dedicated wiki
page[2] beginning now. This gives the community time to chip in and
help with areas that need help without waiting until days before the
release.
I invite teams to identify a representative to keep the wiki page up
to date. Update it as your status changes and I'll post help requests
in my weekly CommBlog posts[3] and the FPgM office hours[4] IRC
meeting. The Release Readiness meeting will be shortened to one hour
and will review open concerns instead of polling for teams that may or
may not be there. We will use the logistics mailing list[5] to discuss
issues and make announcements, so I encourage representatives to join
this list.
[1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-program-update-2020-08/
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Readiness
[3] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/category/program-management/
[4] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/council/#m9570
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
4 years, 1 month
Fedora 32 IoT Edition Test Day - Join Today!
by Sumantro Mukherjee
Hey All,
Fedora Internet of Things is a variant of Fedora focused on IoT ecosystems.
Whether you’re working on a home assistant, industrial gateways, or data
storage and analytics, Fedora IoT provides a trusted open source platform
to build on.
The IoT and QA teams will have this test day on Wednesday, March 04 2020.
Refer to the wiki page [0] for links and resources to test the IoT Edition.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask at #fedora-test-day over
freenode
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2020-03-04_Fedora_32_IoT_Edition
--
//sumantro
Fedora QE
TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED
4 years, 1 month
IoT naming plan
by Ben Cotton
As discussed in yesterday's meeting, here's a draft plan for naming
the IoT edition. Note that this gives Legal a fairly short window to
vet and approve our final names, so I've also prepared a compressed
version (that's still a short window for Legal, but slightly less
short). Either way, we should come to agreement quickly and I'll post
the wiki page first thing Monday (my) morning.
I'm open to other suggestions (e.g. a shorter name suggestion window),
but we do need to move quickly.
## Schedule 1
2 March: Begin collecting name suggestions on the wiki page (bcotton to create)
16 March: End name collection, IoT team removes obvious bad candidates
20 March: bcotton sets up an election in the Elections app (open to
all contributors with CLA+1)
23-30 March: voting period for naming
31 March: top 3 names sent to Red Hat Legal for final vetting
## Schedule 2 (compressed)
2 March: Begin collecting name suggestions on the wiki page (bcotton to create)
16 March: End name collection, IoT team removes obvious bad candidates
17 March: bcotton sets up an election in the Elections app (open to
all contributors with CLA+1)
18-25 March: voting period for naming
26 March: top 3 names sent to Red Hat Legal for final vetting
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
4 years, 1 month
