Response to "Getting Fedora Out of the If-Then Loop"
mmcgrath at redhat.com
Wed Feb 17 20:14:41 UTC 2010
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, inode0 wrote:
> This morning I read John's blog and the thoughtful entry titled
> "Getting Fedora Out of the If-Then Loop." I'd like to make some
> comments but I don't think responding on the blog to all the
> interesting points works well for me so I'm going to cheat and respond
> here. The full blog can be read at
> * An increase in the number of people downloading Fedora could also
> increase the number of new potential contributors.
> It could but does it and to what extent? Is it a good metric for the
> number of contributors joining the project? What does it look like if
> we overlay the recent stagnant download trend with the recent
> statistics showing numbers of contributors over the same period? If we
> see stagnant downloads but increasing participation in terms of growth
> in the contributor numbers it might suggest to me that we are being
> successful at marketing Fedora as a project to potential contributors
> but that perhaps we are being less successful at marketing Fedora the
> distribution to end users.
> While I don't think there is a really strong correlation between
> number of downloads and number of contributors part of the Fedora
> mission is to spread free code and content and I do think download
> statistics measure that in one of its aspects. The more people
> download Fedora the distribution the more we are spreading free code
> and content. When thinking about whether we are being successful in
> this part of our mission I do think we need to consider more than
> downloads though. We also spread code and content through its
> inclusion in other distributions.
> * My best understanding of the argument against setting a target
> audience goes like this, “If we set a target audience for the Fedora
> distribution, then we will marginalize or exclude the people who
> aren’t targeted.”
> I hope no one believes this is anyone's intention or a certain outcome
> of setting the target audience. This is not my argument against
> setting a target audience but it is something I think might result
> from doing so. It also might not result from it, we are all guessing
> in this hypothetical what if we do this world currently but we bring
> different experiences and instincts to the table. The advocates of
> setting a target audience are guessing using their best judgment that
> this and that will happen as a result and those outcomes are good.
> Others see different outcomes in the future. We won't ever know until
> we try it and see what really happens. We can discuss it until we are
> Fedora blue in the face but we won't know until we do it.
> I do want to make my argument against it more clear. I think of the
> Fedora Project structurally something like an inverted pyramid with
> the contributors at the top and the steering committees and the board
> at the little point at the bottom. This picture of our structure isn't
> intended to marginalize the roles of those sitting at the bottom
> point. They are critical to keeping the pyramid from tipping over. But
> it is intended to convey the importance to the project of all those
> other contributors above them in the pyramid.
> What is the role of those at the top of the pyramid? Is it only to
> scratch personal itches? I see it as much more than that. A large
> group of people each with their own peculiar interests, having shared
> core beliefs and values, as a whole provide direction in a way that
> doesn't happen in other organizations. They might not write down a
> mission statement for the organization, but they do *have* a mission.
> I expressed the exact same concern I have now when the board was
> writing the mission statement. I asked the board if they were writing
> *their* mission statement for the project of if they were trying to
> capture the actual mission that existed already and was told it was
> the latter. So I think the board recognized then that the mission was
> defined by those above them in the pyramid and the board did the work
> of figuring out what that mission actually was and wrote it down.
> In the same way there is already a target audience defined by the
> project. In the same way it isn't written down and in the same way
> that our mission may have been unclear to some our target audience is
> unclear. The difference this time is that the board is *defining* it
> as they want it to be rather than figuring out what it is and writing
> that down. This is my perception at least of what is happening.
> The board has reasons for doing this and has identified a wide variety
> of positive benefits that can flow from doing it and I don't dispute
> those although I don't know if this is the only way to accomplish
> those ends. What I fear though is that this distorts the natural
> growth and direction that the project would take in the future. And I
> have more faith in the existing source of that direction than I do in
> a small board that changes composition every 6 months.
> * Does the Fedora board really have a demonstrated history of making
> bad decisions and taking Fedora in the wrong direction? Why so much
> fear and worry that the board will do this now? Part of the problem I
> see is that we are still working through a paradigm change–some driven
> by board members like me who believe the Fedora Board has a
> responsibility to “lead into the future” while overseeing the present.
> In my experience, which is shorter than a lot of yours, the board has
> no such history. The reason there is some worry now is that the board
> is doing something that I haven't seen it do before. The board is now
> saying that something that for 12 releases hasn't been its
> responsibility now is. What happens in 5 years when we should have a
> different target audience? How will the board know it is time to
> change it? Will the board's reaction to changing circumstances be more
> timely and efficient than would otherwise happen? Will it take the
> board 2 years to figure it all out again?
> * For as long as I can remember, the Fedora Project has been all about
> “enabling contributors to do whatever they want.” How has that turned
> out for us? Can we objectively say how good or bad the results are
> compared to what they might have been under a different approach? How
> do we objectively determine if “enabling contributors to do whatever
> they want” is a good strategy for long-term success?
> Many of us think it has turned out great, others apparently disagree.
> All these questions loaded with "objectively" make them impossible to
> answer. We can't objectively determine which of two options is better
> when we can only try one of them. While we avoid false dichotomies
> let's also avoid asking questions like these unless we are going to
> also ask for objective evidence that what you are proposing will have
> better results than the alternatives too.
> * If defining a target audience for our default distribution and
> focusing our efforts increases the number of people actively
> downloading and using the Fedora it could also increase the number of
> potential new contributors.
> Can we objectively say that defining a target audience and focusing
> our efforts will increase the number of people actively downloading
> and using Fedora to an extent greater than would happen with a
> different approach?
> So often I see change result in things that no one anticipated. The
> simple truth is it isn't (a) do X as proposed by the board or (b) do Y
> as proposed by inode0 with these nicely defined consequences. We can
> all try our best to see into the future, but we will likely all be
> wrong about what we see today when confronted with the actual future.
> We don't have enough control of things to predict what will happen or
> to objectively know if we made the right choice when we look back.
> We select a board to make these hard decisions. The board has given
> the community plenty of chances to share with the board both its
> support and its concern. I thank the board for that and don't intend
> to prolong the process by continuing to express my concern. We all
> want the best for the Fedora Project. And whatever falls out when we
> shake this tree we'll all go on working to improve the Fedora Project.
> Leaders are brave and do what they believe is right. Be brave and do
> it. :)
John, I really don't mean this as flame bait but I just read through 19
paragraphs that were critical of things we keep working on but contained
not a single suggestion or alternate solution that was not inaction. I'm
not sure if you realize this or not but you are firmly in the "change is
scary, lets not do it" group.
Fear and uncertanty of change is no reason not to change.
More information about the advisory-board