Empowering Fedora sub-communities

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 04/02/2014 03:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> You know I don't work for Red Hat, right? You know my history with
> Canonical? You're aware that I'm fairly vocal about any organisation or
> company that acts in a way that I feel is contrary to the benefits of
> the overall community?
>
> I am in favour of the .next work because I feel that it benefits Fedora.
> I believe that it has the potential to enhance the community. I am aware
> of cases where it could make active community members feel under
> appreciated, and so*I am trying to find ways of dealing with that*  
> because even though I have a strong technical preference for certain
> solutions I am also aware that this is an area where rational people can
> disagree and no matter how much I might feel that the existing product
> strategy strengthens Fedora I don't want to force people to choose
> between Fedora and their preferred desktop.

I know you mean well and but you are trying to make the best out of 
their proposals but that proposal fundamentally wont work.

You have a strong technical background so in the hope you will be able 
to begin understanding the complexity and what is required to be able to 
make multiple products on multiple release cycles to work, I'm going to 
ask you to Ignore Fedora it's, community, it's share number of component 
and sub communities and play the distribution board game where you step 
into the role of the "distro creator" where you will create from ground 
up very simple multiple products on multiple release cycle using a 
shared common denominator between those products.

As the distribution creator you have unlimited time and resources in the 
world and full control of the release cycle and development of every 
component to begin with.

The core is made of absolute minimal components required to boot linux 
with application A on top of that, being released as product A and 
application B on top of that minimal linux, being released as product B.

Once that has been completed  just start adding layer by layer of 
complexity like you suddenly no longer have all the time in the world so 
you no longer have time to maintain and release product A so you 
outsource it and get Adam the friendly guy to maintain it for you.

Add another layer you no longer have time to maintain and release 
product B so you outsource it to Bill.

Add another layer Adam wants to release on date C while Bill wants to 
release on date D but you are releasing on date E.

Add another layer Adam wants to introduce new component to product A to 
make it shine a bit more.

Add another layer Adam no longer has time to maintain both the original 
component that made product A and the component that makes it shine so 
he outsources the component that makes Product A to Jim and so fourth 
and so on.

With each layer you complete you will gain fundamentally what's required 
to make this work so if we take the WG process and apply it to this 
simple example what fundemental flaw reveals itself?
Do you see it?

Don get me wrong I have been advocating literally for years of us 
dropping the default, equally presenting sub communities work and moving 
into multiple release model so 'm not against that change.
( an change which arguably is not a change since it took place naturally 
by our own evolution with the introduction of lives in fc6/f7 even 
before that since the origin of Fedora Core since the dispute between 
KDE/Gnome has been going on since RHL 6 )


>
> You can disagree with our direction. You are able to make alternative
> proposals. You even have the option of standing for election to the
> bodies that make these decisions. Yet, instead, you repeatedly make
> snide comments from the sidelines, accuse people of being corporate
> shills and claim that there's an ongoing conspiracy to destroy the
> Fedora community.


They have done nothing to prove that they community agrees with them nor 
shown any evidence of why this change was needed in the first place like 
some statistics about the decline of fedora in usage or popularity and 
by the way grep for FedoraOS from fesco meeting logs where fesco 
deliberately pushed the WG onwards not allowing me to come up with a 
counter proposal to the .next and wg when this whole thing was starting 
before you accusing me not trying to follow our own procedures or 
criticize my personality that has been forged by the actions of the 
governing body's of the project.

JBG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20140402/1a3265cd/attachment-0001.html>