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

[Jesse Keating]

On 12/03/2010 01:39 PM, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> 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

Greg, your reasoning here seems to assume that if you as a sig recruit
somebody to QA, that person would then start doing things unrelated to
your sig within the QA group.  That doesn't have to be the case.  Most
of the groups within Fedora are setup buffet style, each person picks
what it is they want to work on.  Being in the group gives them the
rights or status to accomplish the tasks, but they still pick which
tasks to work on.

So if the KDE sig recruits some QA people or releng people, I don't see
any problem with those people only taking on KDE related QA/releng
tasks.  In fact, I would /expect/ that.

We don't really assign tasks in Fedora groups, we just try to make it
easy for people to pick which tasks they want to work on.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating