Hi
http://os.newsforge.com/os/06/05/15/1729249.shtml?tid=2
Max, can you expand on the reference to conary? Is there a switch in package management actually being discussed or was that a analogy?
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
http://os.newsforge.com/os/06/05/15/1729249.shtml?tid=2
Max, can you expand on the reference to conary? Is there a switch in package management actually being discussed or was that a analogy?
gees.. I hope not, I have worked conary and it is not that great at all.
Michael
On Sat, 20 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
http://os.newsforge.com/os/06/05/15/1729249.shtml?tid=2
Max, can you expand on the reference to conary? Is there a switch in package management actually being discussed or was that a analogy?
No, no switch being discussed -- that was just the author's conclusion based on my quote. I can see how he would think that, but it wasn't what I was trying to suggest at all.
Overall, I was pleased with the article. I thought it was very well done.
--Max
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 10:04 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
http://os.newsforge.com/os/06/05/15/1729249.shtml?tid=2
Max, can you expand on the reference to conary? Is there a switch in package management actually being discussed or was that a analogy?
No, no switch being discussed -- that was just the author's conclusion based on my quote. I can see how he would think that, but it wasn't what I was trying to suggest at all.
Overall, I was pleased with the article. I thought it was very well done.
--Max
*offtopic* One of the things I read through maybe into it was that people were discussing different views of voting.
I would have thought that the contributors as in not me but other people who have significantly contributed to the project should vote but aside from that other people shouldn't.
My thoughts are based on the fact that commitment is showing in contribution. However grey areas such as myself is the annoying thing :(
It's quite interesting from someone that is not involved in the discussions to see how it turns out.
*offtopic*
Is there a chance of having different members of the board speaking publicly? What I mean by this is having them with all their free time /sarcasm spend a few moments in putting a path in words of where fedora is heading?
I quite like reading articles from leading people in the open source community where they talk about whats up and coming and how they are dealing with it.
It seems like several *points* can be made. 1. Marketing their distro. 2. Advising the community what someones view is on future changes.
Overall I liked it as well but by the end of the article it left me with a huge number of questions.
Regards,
Marc
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 10:11 +0800, Marc Wiriadisastra wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 10:04 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
http://os.newsforge.com/os/06/05/15/1729249.shtml?tid=2
Max, can you expand on the reference to conary? Is there a switch in package management actually being discussed or was that a analogy?
No, no switch being discussed -- that was just the author's conclusion based on my quote. I can see how he would think that, but it wasn't what I was trying to suggest at all.
Overall, I was pleased with the article. I thought it was very well done.
--Max
*offtopic* One of the things I read through maybe into it was that people were discussing different views of voting.
I would have thought that the contributors as in not me but other people who have significantly contributed to the project should vote but aside from that other people shouldn't.
My thoughts are based on the fact that commitment is showing in contribution. However grey areas such as myself is the annoying thing :(
It's quite interesting from someone that is not involved in the discussions to see how it turns out.
The current thinking is that for Fedora Extras Steering committee, the ones in the owners list and cvsextras group in the accounts system would be eligible for voting since they have contributed atleast one package to the Fedora pool. Does that address your concern?
*offtopic*
Is there a chance of having different members of the board speaking publicly? What I mean by this is having them with all their free time /sarcasm spend a few moments in putting a path in words of where fedora is heading?
I quite like reading articles from leading people in the open source community where they talk about whats up and coming and how they are dealing with it.
It seems like several *points* can be made. 1. Marketing their distro. 2. Advising the community what someones view is on future changes.
Overall I liked it as well but by the end of the article it left me with a huge number of questions.
You might get some insight from the Fedora Board meeting mins at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings. Some of us do write articles thought this one isnt necessarily the kind of thing you are looking for
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/018apr06/features/fc5_overview/
Rahul
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 12:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 10:11 +0800, Marc Wiriadisastra wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 10:04 -0400, Max Spevack wrote:
On Sat, 20 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
http://os.newsforge.com/os/06/05/15/1729249.shtml?tid=2
Max, can you expand on the reference to conary? Is there a switch in package management actually being discussed or was that a analogy?
No, no switch being discussed -- that was just the author's conclusion based on my quote. I can see how he would think that, but it wasn't what I was trying to suggest at all.
Overall, I was pleased with the article. I thought it was very well done.
--Max
*offtopic* One of the things I read through maybe into it was that people were discussing different views of voting.
I would have thought that the contributors as in not me but other people who have significantly contributed to the project should vote but aside from that other people shouldn't.
My thoughts are based on the fact that commitment is showing in contribution. However grey areas such as myself is the annoying thing :(
It's quite interesting from someone that is not involved in the discussions to see how it turns out.
The current thinking is that for Fedora Extras Steering committee, the ones in the owners list and cvsextras group in the accounts system would be eligible for voting since they have contributed atleast one package to the Fedora pool. Does that address your concern?
I thought about just having that however I suppose I would like to see a wider spectrum of people on the board. What I mean by this is that say you have a representative from marketing, docs, triage and the other aspects.
I nominate you :)
While the package devs are important that's only one piece of the puzzle so to speak. As I said I'm not 100% sure on what I'm trying to get across but a 'balanced' board where a few people are able to contribute feedback.
I'm sure this will be worked out anyway but yeah just a thought from my side.
*offtopic*
Is there a chance of having different members of the board speaking publicly? What I mean by this is having them with all their free time /sarcasm spend a few moments in putting a path in words of where fedora is heading?
I quite like reading articles from leading people in the open source community where they talk about whats up and coming and how they are dealing with it.
It seems like several *points* can be made. 1. Marketing their distro. 2. Advising the community what someones view is on future changes.
Overall I liked it as well but by the end of the article it left me with a huge number of questions.
You might get some insight from the Fedora Board meeting mins at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings. Some of us do write articles thought this one isnt necessarily the kind of thing you are looking for
http://www.redhat.com/magazine/018apr06/features/fc5_overview/
Rahul
--
Reading some of the board meetings from that link. I would have to agree with what was said in May basically how to get more transparency to upcoming things. I suppose thats what I'm trying to get at.
The write up is great but I would like to see I suppose what we are trying to achieve type of thing.
What makes it hard is the fact that its all separate projects and we are talking about combining everything.
I suppose in that article on osforge it was mentioned that within the next year Max would like to see such and such. While you can see that in board meetings or ascertain what the future is to bring, it would be great to create a talking point out in the community of what the future holds.
I know what I'm saying is confusing and that Max and other representatives are busy, I suppose getting some form of information to flow in an article type situation out to people gives people ideas of what is going on.
Not so much package A or package B but like conceptual type things. I know me personally I found that article brilliant more for the fact of the sections in Revising Development methods and the section lessons from other communities. Seeing what is trying to be achieved.
I'll leave it alone after this post cause I don't seem to be explaining myself properly. Hopefully I've put across what I would like to see how it can be done I have no idea yet. I suppose just getting people to say I have this vision of the next Fedora or we are working on this and it'll probably take a year to get to.
Regards,
Marc
I suppose in that article on osforge it was mentioned that within the next year Max would like to see such and such. While you can see that in board meetings or ascertain what the future is to bring, it would be great to create a talking point out in the community of what the future holds.
I know what I'm saying is confusing and that Max and other representatives are busy, I suppose getting some form of information to flow in an article type situation out to people gives people ideas of what is going on.
I completely understand what you are saying. I will work hard to continue to give transparency to the work that is happening at the Board level, and also to make it as easy as possible for *everyone* to have a good picture of what the larger goals are.
In terms of your other point of publicity, here's the more or less official line:
We get a few interview requests from time to time. The ones that come directly to Red Hat usually are directed to me, and I have a responsibility to respond to those requests and give interviews, which is something that I enjoy -- though it's funny to read my own quotes afterward and see how they are interpreted.
As for the other Board members -- not all of them want to speak publicly in interviews, etc. -- and that's ok with me. I don't expect that they all will, but I hope that those who want to speak publicly will do so. They're free to repsond to interview requests, give interviews, etc.
We've all got a common message that we're trying to spread when we speak publicly about Fedora. And that message should come out *regardless* of who is doing the speaking. However, aside from that, I think it's incredibly interesting to hear the different perspectives that various Fedora folks have on topics.
I could spend my whole day talking about Fedora and open source ideals with people -- that's a good use of *some* of my time but it would be a poor use of *all* of my time, as I would soon be fired for not accomplishing anything else!
That's where the community comes in -- the rest of the Board, the Ambassadors, and you guys.
--Max
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Marc Wiriadisastra wrote:
Overall I liked it as well but by the end of the article it left me with a huge number of questions.
such as? Let's talk!
--Max
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Marc Wiriadisastra -
Max Spevack -
Michael J. Knox -
Rahul Sundaram