Follow up on Robyn proposal

[inode0]

On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
> Le samedi 27 avril 2013 à 11:32 -0500, inode0 a écrit :
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > as proposed by Robyn and discussed in the meeting, we have 1 week to
>> > refine and discuss the questions ( not the answers, just questions )
>> > that we plan to use to try to define the strategy ( brainstorming is for
>> > later, once we have properly defined the problem ).
>>
>> inode0 impatiently waits for later.
>>
>> > There is 5 questions, but not all are perfectly fitted to our uses
>> > ( because we are not exactly a company with a top down approach :) ),
>> > hence the need for refinement and adaptation.
>>
>> We don't know which questions make sense until we have an idea of what
>> we are trying to do.
>
> I think we all kinda agreed that the current userbase statement could be
> changed, and in turn, this would have a impact on what Fedora as
> community produce.

We don't even agree on what the current definition of user base means.
Does it apply to the default offering only or to the entire Fedora
Project?

> So now we know we have something to change ( even if, for now, we do not
> know where, how, when, we just know we may need to change something ),
> we need to know how to go there. For that, we need to define a strategy,
> and to define a strategy, we have to express it.
>
> And to express it, the proposal is to express it as answers to the 5
> questions.
>
>> I think it is futile to try refining the
>> questions before we begin answering the fundamental question. Once we
>> know where we would like to go the other questions will fall into
>> place as either those Robyn proposed or as refinements of them or as
>> additions to them that make sense in a concrete context. These give an
>> adequate framework to get started as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Fair enough, so let's take a silly example.
>
> So, let's say ( as a example ) that we want Fedora to be the perfect
> distribution for french atmospheric scientists that want to use cloud
> computing ( like users of my flatmate ). Due to me being a jedi and
> using the Force, I convinced the board that's the way to go.
>
> So now we know where we want to go, do you think that, for the Fedora
> community, the 5 questions will permit to define more precisely the
> strategy or not, and permit to express more clearly how we go there.

This is part of what I am afraid of here. We will box ourselves into a
corner where if we can't centrally decide what product(s) Fedora
should produce, how it should produce them, who we need to get to
produce them, and how we pat ourselves on the back by concluding we
have quantifiable proof that we succeeded then we fail.

I'm honestly unlikely to be persuaded to support any strategy
constrained this way. I want to do what is best for the project and
the community (both the one that exists now and the one that will
exist years from now) regardless of whether we can answer some set of
questions that we selected in a vacuum.

> If the answer is "yes", then ok, we keep the questions. If the answer is
> "no, the questions are not adapted to us", then how can we adapt them
> ( add more questions, remove some questions, change them ? ).
>
> And if the answer is "the question are good for this example, but may
> not work for another example", then maybe, but could you be more precise
> on that another example ?

This is really my point. One set of questions might be perfect for one
strategic plan and complete nonsense for another. Some general
questions are fine to think about as we begin but I think they likely
will need to be revisited once there are plans on the table anyway.
Perhaps after this exercise we could each propose a vision of what we
think a healthy Fedora Project might look like in the future.

John