Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo Meeting (2013-09-11)

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 05:22:54PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> What I see us going forward with is the core/baseOS "FedoraOS" that
> the community delivers at large while the sub community they
> themselves set the direction, their target audience and deliver
> "their" product on top of the stable foundation we provide them
> with, the "FedoraOS".

Yes, this is basically the proposal in its current form.

> You want to limit the project to three "official default products"

I don't want to limit the project in that way.

I think these three products are reasonable starting points. I think _one_
doesn't work because it's impossible to be all things to all people and we
also can't (and shouldn't) simply choose one narrow case. I also think
chosing _none_ doesn't work, because there are concrete benefits to having a
clear direction. So, when the idea of three products (Stephen Gallagher's
proposal) came up at Flock, that seemed like a reasonable place to start.

The respective subgroups will need to define exactly what those products
look like -- after establishing governing and communication strategies, this
is their first deliverable. And if working groups other than these three
want to form and start delivering the same, the board can choose to make
those "primary" as well, just as they've approved these three initially.


> that the community delivers at large, which to me, does not solve

So, this depends a lot on what you mean by "community at large" here. I want
Fedora to be inclusive, and the work of all of the subgroups to be
considered part of the community.


> existing problem in our community, narrows down the "scope" of the
> project as well as hinders innovation and participation while I want
> to liberate the community from the shackles of the "default" thus
> finally put the default skeletons to their grave, reduce the
> "bureaucracy" and allow for more innovation. more products, and
> faster adoption for us as an community in whole to the constantly
> changing open source environment and have us contribute shaping that
> landscape.

I'm not finding much to disagree with in the specifics here, but I don't
think I understand some of the more vague parts. What "existing problem in
our community" in particular do you want to address? What do you mean by
narrows down the scope, when we are going from that single default you
clearly dislike into a broader world? Sure, each of the different products
will no longer be expected to be all things to all people, but it's about
_focus_, not excusion.

Now, about bureaucracy -- I don't think it's overly heavy-handed to require
clear membership, governence model, and so on. Yes, that's more formal than
a SIG, but the working groups don't *need* to have a heavyweight process if
they don't want -- they just need a clear, documented one. And while this
does call for the formation of more committees, each will have more autonomy
than a SIG or spin, and each will have that focus I just mentioned as an
organizing principle, along with clear deliverables.


-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>