Board efforts: scope, concept, and permission?

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at
Tue Feb 2 18:22:57 UTC 2010

On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:15:15AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 11:02 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> > I will agree with that, I can see an application space for certain
> > decisions when presented with conflict, but how often does this happen
> > and how is it currently, as well as how has it been in the past,
> > handled and resolved?
> > 
> As sigs and spins grow in size or numbers the potential for this to
> happen is great.  There have been cases of the Desktop sig wanting to
> bring in newer versions of some software, which the KDE sig was not
> ready for, there are conflicts between the traditional Unix folks and
> the future looking Desktop folks, there are conflicts between the
> "everything should work to it's fullest extent out of the box" folks and
> "our installs should be as slim and trim as possible with all optional
> functionality in separate and not installed by default packages" folks,
> and so on.  Because we decree that our spins cannot make material
> changes to the packages and only some minor config changes, we put them
> in an awkward situation if they want to target an audience that is
> vastly different than the other audiences.  To me, that's why it's
> important to define the overall target audience who "trumps" other
> audiences when there is a conflict.  So that we can say "You are free to
> do whatever meets your needs, so long as it doesn't disrupt the needs of
> our target audience".
I agree with the idea that conflict resolution is something we need to work
on but disagree vehemently with the idea that target audience should be what
we throw into the mix to help decide that.  Fedora the Project needs to be
a good environment for contributors to join and try to create their visions of
an open source operating system.  Defining a trumping target audience means
that there are potential roadblocks to that.  Instead of defining a target
audience so that conflicts can be decided with one side winning, a better
way is to figure out ways that both sides get what they want.

Perhaps that means that we need to revisit things like our Conflict
Guidelines.  yum install '*' is the goal that the current Conflict
Guidelines aim at.  But if it limits the ability for people to make both
a minimal-dependency version and a maximal-feature version simultaneously
coexist perhaps that goal needs to be discarded rather than deciding that
we must choose one or the other.

The leadership of Fedora needs to be servant leaders.  People who work hard
to help the people they lead to achieve their goals.  We need mediators who
work to help parties reach compromises not juries that render outside decisions.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the devel mailing list