10:01 a.m.
Folks, we have now spent some time housekeeping and organization, so far without viable
result. The only solution I see is a restart with the help of FESCo and/or Council.
We have 2 organisational units: the SIG and the WG. There are 33 names listed on the SIG
page, of which only 2 have "reappeared" after the reboot (Matthew and Stephen
Smoogen). The last activity was 6 (!) years ago. The current WG lists 8 names, of which 4
are fortunately still highly active. But 50% are inactive at this difficult stage of the
reboot.
There is no rule about leaving members or inactive members by voting or WG decision. The
only possibility is a decision by FESCo / Council.
At the same time, we need to rethink the relationship between SIG and WG. I quote Stephen
Smoogen:
„I think a lot of people applying think that a working group is similar to SIG membership.
I made that mistake when I first tried to join when the Server Working Group was formed.
Being a member of a working group is basically a commitment for N hours a week to do
whatever is needed for the group to get an edition out the door. It may be writing tests
for QA, it may be writing documentation, it may be sitting in multiple meetings in a week
to reach a consensus on what is getting done in this edition, and it may be coming in
every morning and finding out why a server compose broke (versus others) and see which
commit did it. It is called a 'working' group for that reason.“
Looking at the list of people interested in the Server WG, I reckon we are not in the
happy situation that 19 people want to (and can) make a "commitment for N hours a
week to do whatever is needed".
That considered, it is probably to be preferred to focus more on the SIG. That's the
place where discussion and innovation take place. The first thing we have to do is rebuild
the SIG.
The Working Group is a special arrangement, according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Leadership#Working_Groups a subcommittee of FESCo or
Council, requires formal membership and active contributions, and is a requirement for
Editions.
Please remember: According to our rules (Government Charter), Working Group membership is
not a prerequisite for participation in voting and decision-making! Regularly, all (SIG)
participants are involved! We are community based. In case of doubt, members of the
Working Group are the ones who have to ensure implementation if no one else can do it (or
may veto if implementation is not feasible).
Therefore, FESCo / Council should decide / approve
(a) Rebuild Server SIG and gather all interested parties and activists there (see list at
the end), as a replacement for the current long list.
(b) Rebuild the Working Group approving the current active members (see list at the end)
and if considered useful, additional active participants for specific tasks.
(c) Consider to add a section to the Governance Charter alike „A Working Group member is
expected to provide regular and continuous work on one or more of the different work areas
as required to keep Fedora Server running. Membership begins on the day of election and
lasts for 2 years. The first period ends at the end of the second following year. It is
automatically renewed if the member commits to a further period. Renewal is possible as
often as desired.“
Looking over the discussion since November last year, I think we have 2 particular areas
of focus for the coming months (in addition to the ongoing work on releases and bug
fixing):
(a) Building up a new documentation
(b) Establishing a cooperation with Cloud Images
and ultimately probably also
(c) Organisation and Community building
For these areas we would need to find someone who commits to "… N hours a week to do
whatever is needed…" and "...sitting in multiple meetings in a week to reach a
consensus..." (Stephen Smoogen).
As to the list of participants listed above:
current active WG members:
* Kevin Fenzi (@nirik)
* Stephen Gallagher (@sgallagh)
* Stephen Smoogen (@smooge) (but see below!)
* Adam Williamson (@adamw)
Ambiguous WG membership status:
* ngompa
(remembers to have been elected, but currently not listed on Wiki, maybe update was
missed)
New participants who could already contribute
* salimma Michel Alexandre Salim (organized follow up IRC meetings)
* pboy Peter Boy (PRD proposal, documentation concept)
* x3mboy Eduard Lucena (Posting the PRD draft in hackmd)
New participants up for contribution opportunities
* @langdon Langdon White
* @abbra Alexander Bokovoy
* @astra David Kaufmann
* @jwhimpel John Himpel
* @sghosh Subhendu Ghosh
* @jbwillia Ben Williams
* @defolos
* @mhoungbo
* @fcami
* @fsaez
* @nb (proposed by St. Smoogen to replace him as WG member )
10:28 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
Folks, we have now spent some time housekeeping and organization, so far without viable
result. The only solution I see is a restart with the help of FESCo and/or Council.
We have 2 organisational units: the SIG and the WG. There are 33 names listed on the SIG
page, of which only 2 have "reappeared" after the reboot (Matthew and Stephen
Smoogen). The last activity was 6 (!) years ago. The current WG lists 8 names, of which 4
are fortunately still highly active. But 50% are inactive at this difficult stage of the
reboot.
There is no rule about leaving members or inactive members by voting or WG decision. The
only possibility is a decision by FESCo / Council.
At the same time, we need to rethink the relationship between SIG and WG. I quote Stephen
Smoogen:
„I think a lot of people applying think that a working group is similar to SIG
membership. I made that mistake when I first tried to join when the Server Working Group
was formed.
Being a member of a working group is basically a commitment for N hours a week to do
whatever is needed for the group to get an edition out the door. It may be writing tests
for QA, it may be writing documentation, it may be sitting in multiple meetings in a week
to reach a consensus on what is getting done in this edition, and it may be coming in
every morning and finding out why a server compose broke (versus others) and see which
commit did it. It is called a 'working' group for that reason.“
Looking at the list of people interested in the Server WG, I reckon we are not in the
happy situation that 19 people want to (and can) make a "commitment for N hours a
week to do whatever is needed".
That considered, it is probably to be preferred to focus more on the SIG. That's the
place where discussion and innovation take place. The first thing we have to do is rebuild
the SIG.
The Working Group is a special arrangement, according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Leadership#Working_Groups a subcommittee of FESCo or
Council, requires formal membership and active contributions, and is a requirement for
Editions.
Please remember: According to our rules (Government Charter), Working Group membership is
not a prerequisite for participation in voting and decision-making! Regularly, all (SIG)
participants are involved! We are community based. In case of doubt, members of the
Working Group are the ones who have to ensure implementation if no one else can do it (or
may veto if implementation is not feasible).
Therefore, FESCo / Council should decide / approve
(a) Rebuild Server SIG and gather all interested parties and activists there (see list at
the end), as a replacement for the current long list.
(b) Rebuild the Working Group approving the current active members (see list at the end)
and if considered useful, additional active participants for specific tasks.
(c) Consider to add a section to the Governance Charter alike „A Working Group member is
expected to provide regular and continuous work on one or more of the different work areas
as required to keep Fedora Server running. Membership begins on the day of election and
lasts for 2 years. The first period ends at the end of the second following year. It is
automatically renewed if the member commits to a further period. Renewal is possible as
often as desired.“
Looking over the discussion since November last year, I think we have 2 particular areas
of focus for the coming months (in addition to the ongoing work on releases and bug
fixing):
(a) Building up a new documentation
(b) Establishing a cooperation with Cloud Images
and ultimately probably also
(c) Organisation and Community building
For these areas we would need to find someone who commits to "… N hours a week to do
whatever is needed…" and "...sitting in multiple meetings in a week to reach a
consensus..." (Stephen Smoogen).
Not being a WG would be a serious blow to the Server Edition,
including potentially endangering its prominence on the main website
and in marketing. I would rather it stay being a working group. That
said, the charter for the Server WG is kind of onerous compared to the
Workstation WG and perhaps we need to fix the governance of the Server
WG to be more lightweight. We made similar adjustments in the
Workstation WG a few years ago, and it made things considerably
easier.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
10:48 a.m.
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 11:29, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de>
wrote:
>
> Folks, we have now spent some time housekeeping and organization, so far
without viable result. The only solution I see is a restart with the help
of FESCo and/or Council.
>
>
> We have 2 organisational units: the SIG and the WG. There are 33 names
listed on the SIG page, of which only 2 have "reappeared" after the reboot
(Matthew and Stephen Smoogen). The last activity was 6 (!) years ago. The
current WG lists 8 names, of which 4 are fortunately still highly active.
But 50% are inactive at this difficult stage of the reboot.
>
> There is no rule about leaving members or inactive members by voting or
WG decision. The only possibility is a decision by FESCo / Council.
>
>
>
> At the same time, we need to rethink the relationship between SIG and
WG. I quote Stephen Smoogen:
>
> „I think a lot of people applying think that a working group is similar
to SIG membership. I made that mistake when I first tried to join when the
Server Working Group was formed.
>
> Being a member of a working group is basically a commitment for N hours
a week to do whatever is needed for the group to get an edition out the
door. It may be writing tests for QA, it may be writing documentation, it
may be sitting in multiple meetings in a week to reach a consensus on what
is getting done in this edition, and it may be coming in every morning and
finding out why a server compose broke (versus others) and see which commit
did it. It is called a 'working' group for that reason.“
>
> Looking at the list of people interested in the Server WG, I reckon we
are not in the happy situation that 19 people want to (and can) make a
"commitment for N hours a week to do whatever is needed".
>
> That considered, it is probably to be preferred to focus more on the
SIG. That's the place where discussion and innovation take place. The first
thing we have to do is rebuild the SIG.
>
> The Working Group is a special arrangement, according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Leadership#Working_Groups a subcommittee
of FESCo or Council, requires formal membership and active contributions,
and is a requirement for Editions.
>
>
> Please remember: According to our rules (Government Charter), Working
Group membership is not a prerequisite for participation in voting and
decision-making! Regularly, all (SIG) participants are involved! We are
community based. In case of doubt, members of the Working Group are the
ones who have to ensure implementation if no one else can do it (or may
veto if implementation is not feasible).
>
>
> Therefore, FESCo / Council should decide / approve
>
> (a) Rebuild Server SIG and gather all interested parties and activists
there (see list at the end), as a replacement for the current long list.
>
> (b) Rebuild the Working Group approving the current active members (see
list at the end) and if considered useful, additional active participants
for specific tasks.
>
> (c) Consider to add a section to the Governance Charter alike „A Working
Group member is expected to provide regular and continuous work on one or
more of the different work areas as required to keep Fedora Server running.
Membership begins on the day of election and lasts for 2 years. The first
period ends at the end of the second following year. It is automatically
renewed if the member commits to a further period. Renewal is possible as
often as desired.“
>
>
> Looking over the discussion since November last year, I think we have 2
particular areas of focus for the coming months (in addition to the ongoing
work on releases and bug fixing):
>
> (a) Building up a new documentation
> (b) Establishing a cooperation with Cloud Images
>
> and ultimately probably also
>
> (c) Organisation and Community building
>
> For these areas we would need to find someone who commits to "… N hours
a week to do whatever is needed…" and "...sitting in multiple meetings in a
week to reach a consensus..." (Stephen Smoogen).
>
Not being a WG would be a serious blow to the Server Edition,
I think the issue is that we have neither a working Working Group or a
working SIG to make the Working Group possible. A lot of people have just
used the Server spin as a replacement for the old Everything spin so that
they could avoid being 'dictated by the Workstation group' (as said by
several over the years). But a Working Group needs to be more than 'it's
not Workstation' and it needs to have people who have a) time to devote to
it and b) a genuine interest in making a Server spin.
At this point we need to get our houses in order and the SIG is where that
happens. We can try to do both, but most people don't have your 'over 9000'
energy levels to do both the SIG and WG setup. We do need to make the
governance of the WG more light weight and more in line with the
Workstation and probably IOT WG items. However, that needs people who are
able to focus on doing that. What we have instead are 34+ volunteers who
may be able to help, may not, may want something completely different, etc.
We need to get that cleared up before we can do the adjustments to the
charter.
[And man I have now put more energy into this than I expected I would.. so
it is clear I have some passion towards this.]
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
12:06 p.m.
Am 11.02.2021 um 17:28 schrieb Neal Gompa
<ngompa13(a)gmail.com>:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>
> Folks, we have now spent some time housekeeping and organization, so far without
viable result. The only solution I see is a restart with the help of FESCo and/or
Council.
>
>
> For these areas we would need to find someone who commits to "… N hours a week
to do whatever is needed…" and "...sitting in multiple meetings in a week to
reach a consensus..." (Stephen Smoogen).
>
Not being a WG would be a serious blow to the Server Edition,
including potentially endangering its prominence on the main website
and in marketing. I would rather it stay being a working group. That
said, the charter for the Server WG is kind of onerous compared to the
Workstation WG and perhaps we need to fix the governance of the Server
WG to be more lightweight. We made similar adjustments in the
Workstation WG a few years ago, and it made things considerably
easier.
Sorry if my wording was misleading. I was *not* suggesting that the Working Group should
be dispensed with. I was suggesting to keep the WG the way it is suggested by Fedora
procedures (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Leadership#Working_Groups). Not everyone who
likes to participate will be willing and able to do the same high level of work that is
expected of the Working Group. Hence the proposal to re-establish both, SIG and WG. This
avoids misunderstandings, failures and disappointed expectations.
12:30 p.m.
El jue, 11 feb 2021 a las 15:06, Peter Boy (<pboy(a)uni-bremen.de>) escribió:
> Am 11.02.2021 um 17:28 schrieb Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com>:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:02 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>>
>> Folks, we have now spent some time housekeeping and organization, so
far without viable result. The only solution I see is a restart with the
help of FESCo and/or Council.
>>
>>
>> For these areas we would need to find someone who commits to "… N hours
a week to do whatever is needed…" and "...sitting in multiple meetings in a
week to reach a consensus..." (Stephen Smoogen).
>>
>
> Not being a WG would be a serious blow to the Server Edition,
> including potentially endangering its prominence on the main website
> and in marketing. I would rather it stay being a working group. That
> said, the charter for the Server WG is kind of onerous compared to the
> Workstation WG and perhaps we need to fix the governance of the Server
> WG to be more lightweight. We made similar adjustments in the
> Workstation WG a few years ago, and it made things considerably
> easier.
Sorry if my wording was misleading. I was *not* suggesting that the
Working Group should be dispensed with. I was suggesting to keep the WG the
way it is suggested by Fedora procedures (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Leadership#Working_Groups). Not everyone
who likes to participate will be willing and able to do the same high level
of work that is expected of the Working Group. Hence the proposal to
re-establish both, SIG and WG. This avoids misunderstandings, failures and
disappointed expectations.
I'm interested and have from 4 to 6 hours a week to work on Server. I've
been a little behind on my tasks with the PRD; but I'm planning this
weekend to finish them.
So, what it's decided here, I'm up to work!
Br,
--
Eduard Lucena
Móvil: +56962318010
GNU/Linux User #589060
Ubuntu User #8749
Fedora Marketing Representative
10:16 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:01 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
Please remember: According to our rules (Government Charter), Working Group membership is
not a prerequisite for participation in voting and decision-making!
I think you do want the Working Group to be the voting members, as it
is a FESCo subcommittee. That way it's clear who makes decisions, and
who are expected to show up for regular meetings. And who you ask to
resign when they haven't shown up for six months or whatever you
decide.
We did talk about the question of member removal when redoing
Workstation WG governance a year ago. I took the position that it
didn't need a written procedure. Just ask. If that fails (I mean
honestly, who would say no if asked to resign?) then you can file a
private FESCo ticket and they can deal with it. Again, it's a FESCo
subcommittee and FESCo can even totally dissolve the WG without notice
(not that that would ever happen but it wouldn't break any sort of
well established rules about the relationship between committees and
subcommittees, not least of which is the superseding committee is
elected by the Fedora community, and as such have more authority for
such decision making.)
Ergo, I don't think a procedure in a document makes it any less
awkward, or more automatic, that an inactive member just leaves. But I
do think that regular meetings are important, however brief. In
Workstation WG, we decided weekly was better. And sometimes those
meetings are short. Usually we go 50 minutes.
Another big change we made was Blue Jeans meetings. It took some
adjustment, but I think it helped in non-obvious ways: it makes them
special events, you are more obviously missed. The agenda is organized
in part by pagure tickets, along with the Chair's assessments, though
anyone can flag an issue with a meeting-request tag. These are open
meetings. Anyone can join video or even call in, all that info is
posted on desktop@ each week. And we take minutes and feed them into
meetbot.
And also another change we made was having cycle based permanent Chair
and Vice-Chair positions, to help establish stable leadership.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Governance
--
Chris Murphy
2:09 a.m.
Am 12.02.2021 um 05:16 schrieb Chris Murphy
<lists(a)colorremedies.com>:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 9:01 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>
> Please remember: According to our rules (Government Charter), Working Group
membership is not a prerequisite for participation in voting and decision-making!
I think you do want the Working Group to be the voting members, as it
is a FESCo subcommittee. That way it's clear who makes decisions, and
who are expected to show up for regular meetings.
I am just trying to suggest a practicable and viable way forward in the current obviously
difficult situation. And I think it is currently best to stick to the existing procedures
and rules for the time being. Once we are sailing on safe ground again, we may need to
make more workable adjustments.
With regard to voting, our Governance Charter explicitly states:
"The Server Working Group strives to work on consensus and only vote on things where
it’s clear people aren’t going to be convinced to agree. … at least three Working Group
members must be present. … Votes are accepted by all participants in the meeting (not just
those of Working Group members), so the community is highly encouraged to join. … "
I understand this to mean that not only WG members vote, but also the
"community", without distinction, which in our case would/could be the SIG.
And who you ask to
resign when they haven't shown up for six months or whatever you
decide.
We did talk about the question of member removal when redoing
Workstation WG governance a year ago. I took the position that it
didn't need a written procedure. Just ask. If that fails (I mean
honestly, who would say no if asked to resign?) then you can file a
private FESCo ticket and they can deal with it.
I am sceptical whether a "private ticket" is the right way to go. It is not very
consensual and not very community-based. But I agree with establishing as few rules as
possible so as not to complicate processes.
So the section under (c) should be dropped for the time being.
But I
do think that regular meetings are important, however brief.
Agreed! According to my overview, no one has argued against this so far.
And also another change we made was having cycle based permanent
Chair
and Vice-Chair positions, to help establish stable leadership.
Agreed. Especially in our current situation, this makes a lot of sense.
The Workstation Charter sets quite precise requirements for a candidacy for membership:
„… seek out candidates that have been showing persistent and high-quality contribution to
Workstation technology or direction.“ And there are just 10 members.
I think this is very sensible and necessary. But unfortunately it also excludes interested
parties and makes a community process more difficult.
With our SIG, we are opening a way for interested parties to make a more limited, but yes
still helpful and valuable effort. And they are also involved in decisions, no one is
excluded. That way may not be perfect, I think it is nevertheless quite advantageous.
What follows from these considerations? @Chris Murphy, what do you suggest?
* Should we propose to FESCo to form the Working Group with all 19 existing members and
interested parties (and shut down or ignore the SIG, at least for the time being)?
* Should we propose to FESCo to form the Working Group with the existing active members
and the interested ones "that have been showing persistent and high-quality
contribution"? And who could that be?
* Or should we go yet another way?
I think we need to come up with a workable solution quickly and should not spend a lot
more of time on ourselves.
Peter
8:34 p.m.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 1:09 AM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> Am 12.02.2021 um 05:16 schrieb Chris Murphy
<lists(a)colorremedies.com>:
>
> I think you do want the Working Group to be the voting members, as it
> is a FESCo subcommittee. That way it's clear who makes decisions, and
> who are expected to show up for regular meetings.
I am just trying to suggest a practicable and viable way forward in the current obviously
difficult situation. And I think it is currently best to stick to the existing procedures
and rules for the time being. Once we are sailing on safe ground again, we may need to
make more workable adjustments.
With regard to voting, our Governance Charter explicitly states:
"The Server Working Group strives to work on consensus and only vote on things where
it’s clear people aren’t going to be convinced to agree. … at least three Working Group
members must be present. … Votes are accepted by all participants in the meeting (not just
those of Working Group members), so the community is highly encouraged to join. … "
I understand this to mean that not only WG members vote, but also the
"community", without distinction, which in our case would/could be the SIG.
I agree you need to follow the current governance. And it's up to the
Server Working Group under that governance to decide whether/how to
change things.
> We did talk about the question of member removal when redoing
> Workstation WG governance a year ago. I took the position that it
> didn't need a written procedure. Just ask. If that fails (I mean
> honestly, who would say no if asked to resign?) then you can file a
> private FESCo ticket and they can deal with it.
I am sceptical whether a "private ticket" is the right way to go. It is not
very consensual and not very community-based.
A normal ticket is OK too. There's nothing wrong with using a private
ticket to notify FESCo of something that is in their direct domain.
The ensuing FESCo meeting will be public and logged. Point is, I don't
think membership removal is a major concern that needs to go into the
governance doc.
But I agree with establishing as few rules as possible so as not to
complicate processes.
You can establish your own meeting rules, independent of the
governance doc. That way you have norms, guidelines, rules to follow,
but they're easier to refresh as required without having to redo the
governance and get it approved. One possible convention is the chair
proposes those meeting rules when they first take up the gavel. It's a
simple majority vote, so the WG can settle it independently.
What follows from these considerations? @Chris Murphy, what do you
suggest?
* Should we propose to FESCo to form the Working Group with all 19 existing members and
interested parties (and shut down or ignore the SIG, at least for the time being)?
I'm not sure it's either SIG or WG. It's probably both.
It's difficult to get 19 people to agree on something, and I expect
this translates into less consensus and more voting to decide things.
And to go around the room to get opinions, you'll need some fairly
strict time limits. If everyone gets just 1 minute to talk, it's 19
responses taking 19 minutes. That's if you don't talk all at once, and
if you do talk all at once, like is common on IRC, while that's less
time (maybe) it's now a reading bandwidth problem.
Also the governance says you need at least three present at a meeting
to make decisions. That's compatible with a WG made of 6, but it's a
small quorum for a group of 19.
I don't see it as a problem to have a SIG as the larger group, with
the WG being consistently available and comprising the voting members.
It makes the WG the core group working consistently to make the
Edition what it is, and ensuring it's produced and meeting your
expectations.
* Should we propose to FESCo to form the Working Group with the
existing active members and the interested ones "that have been showing persistent
and high-quality contribution"? And who could that be?
I agree with your assessment at the outside of this thread, that it
should involve a discussion with FESCo and Council. There's been a
long period of stagnation and logjam and it's probably ideal to get
WG, FESCo, Council on board with that reboot as a full effort rather
than just expecting the Server WG to self-boot.
I think we need to come up with a workable solution quickly and
should not spend a lot more of time on ourselves.
A project needs people (a limited resource) to get things done, but
not just any people, it needs committed people for consistency and
reliability. Conversely, people need a project with a vision they have
a shared interest in, so they know what they are committing their
limited time to.
--
Chris Murphy
10:03 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 07:34:50PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
I agree with your assessment at the outside of this thread, that it
should involve a discussion with FESCo and Council. There's been a
long period of stagnation and logjam and it's probably ideal to get
WG, FESCo, Council on board with that reboot as a full effort rather
than just expecting the Server WG to self-boot.
For the record, I'm okay either way. If there's a group of people who are
ready to self-boot (as you say), we shouldn't put barriers in the way.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
1164
days inactive
1169
days old
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Chris Murphy -
Eduard Lucena -
Matthew Miller -
Neal Gompa -
Peter Boy -
Stephen John Smoogen