Request: please consider clarifying the project's position on Spins

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Larry Cafiero <larry.cafiero at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Greg DeKoenigsberg <
> greg.dekoenigsberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> To be clear: much of this responsibility should fall on the advocates for
>> these spins.  "Hey Meego, want more marketing?  Recruit some folks to the
>> marketing team who care about Meego to help carry the load."
>>
>
> This is probably the most relevant paragraph in this entire thread, and
> thanks Greg for making this point. Instead of "much of the responsibility,"
> though, I'd say "most of the responsibility" or even arguably "all of the
> responsibility."
>

But then the question becomes: if spin folks are entirely response bringing
volunteers to help with these tasks, what's their incentive to send them to
another team to do the work?

The analogue in the working world: I'm not going to recruit a resource so
that resource can be "managed" by someone else in such a way that I only get
that resource part-time.  I'm going to recruit someone who works for me, and
does my bidding, and I'm going to hoard that resource, unless there's a
*clear* benefit to me for sharing that resource.

Seems to me like we've got two ways of providing resources to various
subprojects: 1. infrastructure support, and 2. people support.  I would
argue that we've done a good job at 1., and a poor job at 2.

Maybe the "Spins SIG" should have a strong focus on improving infrastructure
support.  Improving kopers, QA infrastructure, build hosts -- those are
things that we can figure out how to scale.  Scaling people is much harder,
and clearly much more contentious.

--g
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20101203/b8194e80/attachment.html