On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Mark Terranova <doctorfoss(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Remy DeCausemaker <decause(a)redhat.com>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:18 AM, James Bishop <james(a)jamesbishop.ca> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 00:42 -0400, Justin W. Flory wrote:
> >> On 04/03/2016 10:59 AM, Sylvia Sánchez wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Justin!
> >> > Your link doesn't exist or has no text... Is it right?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Cheers!
> >> >
> >> Yes, nothing is there yet, but the info we are looking at drafting up
> >> is
> >> intended to go there.
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Justin W. Flory
> >> jflory7(a)gmail.com
> >> --
> >> marketing mailing list
> >> marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> http://email@example.com
> >> ect.org
> > Hi Justin,
> > Thanks for getting back to me yet. The big thing I was wondering about
> > was what was already done, since I saw a few names already attached to
> > the ticket. I was also concerned about stepping on toes due to going
> > ahead and doing stuff without checking in first.
> This is a totally normal thing to wonder about, and I have an answer for
> Just Do It.
> Do the things.
/me loves this idea. It's one of the things that drew me to Fedora.
Unfortunately, it falls apart at times when it come to the reality of
FUNDING. We should add parenthetically; go to more meetings, and have your
soul die a bit as you do so.
The recommendation here in this ticket was not "go to meetings" it was
to "do stuff."
Though not always fast or easy, meetings are a necessary part of doing
distributed decentralized work in open and public ways.
I don't think everyone on this list, or elsewhere Fedora, feels the
same way about meetings as you do MarkDude. We must not diminish the
time and effort that contributors put into making meetings happen,
which almost always have public agendas that are open to contributions
and suggestions, should you feel they are not maximally productive.
I would point to the Fedora Design team's re-worked meeting protocol
as a model for keeping meetings focused, task oriented, and
ticket-driven (described by mizmo here):
> Your are implicitly powered, as a member of the Fedora community,
> dive in an contribute. You don't need my permission, or the marketing
> team's, or anyone else's. Most of us would rather celebrate progress
> than have you block on process. In the event that you do make a
> mistake, the wiki is revision controlled, and we can revert it if we
> need to, or migrate your work to a different place.
This is true, Fedorans by basic nature want to help. We already have
processes to avoid minutiae taking all of our time. RH are great sponsors,
but, they can do more. We are doing value adds for them. Reciprocity. To be
clear, I love Fedora, and am proud to be part of it. But that funding thing
is a mofo (and so arbitrary at times.)
I think that funding and budgetary requests--though an important
issue--are somewhat out of scope for this thread.
If you would like to comment on budget impact and reciprocity, please
see my most recent requests to the Ambassadors--whom the Fedora
Council and Ambassador Steering Committee have empowered to spend (and
report) their own regional budgets as they see fit.
I'm still waiting on either reports, proposals, or delegation
selections from each region, which are necessary for us to continue
budget planning and allocation for FY17:
Thank you jbishop for taking the initiative on this ticket to help
bring more light to the places where Fedora is having a positive
impact outside of our community. This is an important role that
members of the CommOps team serve in the project, and can potentially
make a big difference :)
Fedora Community Lead & Council