Fedora Board Recap 2009-04-29

[John Poelstra]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-04-29

== Roll Call ==

* Board Members: Paul Frields, Dimitris Glezos, Bill Nottingham, Spot 
Callaway, Matt Domsch, Seth Vidal, Jesse Keating, Chris Tyler, 
Christopher Aillon
* Regrets: Harald Hoyer
* Secretary: John Poelstra

==  Belgian Domain Request ==
* previously: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-04-22#be.fedoracommunity.org_Domain_Request
* Paul: board is still waiting for response from requestor
* Paul: guidelines have been updated so all community members are on 
level playing field for requests

== What is Fedora? ==
* previously: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-04-22#What_is_Fedora.3F
* Paul:
# Have we finished discussing this topic?
# What is the board's role: arbitrate problems or lead with new initiatives?

Discussion occurred; proposals and decisions have been tabled to the 
next meeting.

''' BRAINSTORMING FOLLOWS -- THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BOARD 
POLICY OR DECISION '''

* Paul
** Is the board OK with the current process we are on surrounding 
defining Fedora and its goals and purposes? ((have we answered this 
question?))
** Suggests that board next move forward with a prioritized list of 
goals for Fedora. To do that we need a foundation for what Fedora is about
** How do we decide what is most important to Fedora? ((have we answered 
this question?))
** Could this affect release processes and policies and what drives them?
** How does the board help guide and lead the project?
* Matt: board should be more than judges, we should lead new initiatives
* Seth: we owe it to everyone to be clear about whether the desktop team 
is the decider for what fedora's technical decisions and directions are. 
Or not.
* CTyler: seems there is lack of clarity in community about Fedora
* Notting: Would clarity on any of the question of "What is Fedora" have 
helped quell or guide the recent upheavals on fedora-devel-list?  Tend 
to believe no
* Point is not to derail FESCo decision-making, on the contrary to 
ensure they have sufficient input, e.g. schedules
** Spot on how schedules and slip/no-slip decisions are made:
*** Schedule drafted by Rel-Eng
*** Schedule sent to FESCo for approval
*** Approved schedule documented
*** At major milestone points, representatives from each key Fedora 
group report on readiness status
*** If any Fedora group feels like we need to slip, we discuss it and 
decide on whether or not to slip
** Community seems to want answer of is "Fedora a Desktop" or "Who is 
the target user" and not so much "What is Fedora?"
** Can we delegate "Who is Fedora's target audience is" to each SIG? 
i.e., each Spin sets its target audience.
* jkeating thinks that less choice would be more effective.
* spot disagreed somewhat and thinks that representing the spins in a 
list helps us extend our user base.
** wants FESCo to continue to arbitrate requests for changes that could 
affect more than that spin (like default behaviors, package changes, etc.)
* jkeating: Brings us back to who we want to target. Some change is 
going to break the experience for everyone.
* notting: We've made changes that affect GNOME & KDE, and we leave 
other desktops' changes to others.  (jkeating: Sometimes GNOME only.)
* How do we decide where the lines are between which target users get 
preference over others?
* spot: Suggest that GNOME Desktop spin be explicitly acknowledged as 
default ("first among equals") -- Changes to benefit other Spins that 
create a conflict should be arbitrated by FESCo, with guidance that the 
GNOME Desktop spin wins if all else is equal. If those changes are not 
amenable to the GNOME desktop SIG, then they go to FESCo for 
arbitration. If FESCo feels that the change is worthwhile, they should 
escalate to the Board for final decision.