Response to "Getting Fedora Out of the If-Then Loop"

Mike McGrath mmcgrath at
Sat Feb 20 17:56:29 UTC 2010

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010, Thomas Janssen wrote:

> 2010/2/20 Paul W. Frields <stickster at>:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 08:44:56PM -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 17:30 -0500, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> >> > Think of it this way: every Fedora subproject, from the lowest SIG to the
> >> > loftiest, competes for resources, to a greater or lesser extent.
> >> >
> >> > Like the homepage, for instance.  The homepage of, for example,
> >> > is the subject of insanely brutal infighting, because everyone wants to
> >> > see their baby get equal treatment.  Which is fair, btw, and which we will
> >> > see more and more in Fedora-land as we continue to discuss issues of
> >> > "focus".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Attention", or "focus" if you prefer, is a scarce resource.  If you work
> >> > on KDE or Xfce, and all of the conversation is continually around "focus",
> >> > and it seems like that "focus" discussion continues to be "a usability
> >> > focus on the primary spin," then one wonders "will I have access to these
> >> > resources?"  In fact, one knows the answer, and therefore doesn't bother
> >> > to ask.
> >>
> >> Those resources are not as fluid or transferable as they seem in the
> >> abstract, though. Adam enjoys working on XFCE. Nobody is going to force
> >> him to stop working on it - it's just not reasonable. I have no QT or
> >> KDE app design expertise. If we suddenly decided to focus on the KDE
> >> spin as the default spin, am I going to be expected to start churning
> >> out mockups for KDE apps or am I going to be prevented from continuing
> >> to work on mockups for GTK+-based apps?
> >>
> >> There's a reality here that's not being acknowledged, and it has little
> >> to do with popularity. I hope folks who work on XFCE or KDE in Fedora
> >> don't come into those projects with the expectation that the same amount
> >> of resources are dedicated to those as the desktop spin - because that's
> >> never been true, and I sure hope they've not been misled into thinking
> >> so. If I go to a Honda dealer in order to buy a Chevy I saw an ad for in
> >> the paper, I do go with the full understanding that they're a Honda
> >> dealership and don't argue with the dealer that he should have that used
> >> Cobalt in red, blue, and silver as well as black.
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > It's important we realize this isn't just about spins or desktop
> > environments.  It's also about the people who work on QA, release
> > engineering, docs, marketing, testing, and so forth.  Since time
> > immemorial we've had unresolved questions about how to resolve
> > conflicts between how our technology moves, what should be documented
> > by default, how QA picks targets for testing... all of these questions
> > have been around for a while.  In part we're trying to acknowledge
> > those issues and move on.  At the same time, recognizing those areas
> > may have scant resources, we want to identify the gaps they create
> > clearly.  That way, contributors *know where their help is needed*,
> > and also have the opportunity to gather like-minded people to work on
> > closing them.
> Interesting. As the KDE SIG decided (IIRC it was pointed out that we
> need that) that we do better QA for the KDE Desktop spin, i sent a
> mail to the list introduced myself and applied for the QA group in
> FAS. I still wait to get approved for QA. I dont want to say it's
> because of KDE is not part of the QA work that's going on. I just want
> to show that it's frustrating to want to do the work, already doing
> the work (as possible), but not getting applied.

FWIW, doing what you said you did... isn't mentioned in here once:

Perhaps thats why you're still waiting?


More information about the advisory-board mailing list