Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Sat Jan 25 11:39:53 UTC 2014


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi!

On 23.01.2014 22:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis
> <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
>> On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What 
>>> else should be included? What different directions should we 
>>> consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome than ever in
>>> the coming year?
>> Okay, I'll bite (after thinking whether writing this mail is
>> worth it):
> Hey Thorsten! Glad you did. ;)

:)

>> I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But
>> more and more I tend to the latter position and wonder if it
>> might be wise to slow things down: Do one more Fedora release the
>> old style in round about June; that would give us more time to
>> better discuss and work out Fedora.next and get contributors
>> involved better in the planing.
> This is not practical. Lots of people are thinking about a 
> fedora.next, qa folks are coding away, lots of people who normally 
> would be working on the next release are not. If we tell them to
> stop all that and go back to normal, we could, but then fedora.next
> will likely never ever happen.

Understood, but OTOH it makes me wonder if Fedora.next is a step to
big and needs to be split or something.

> [...] The current problem I have with Fedora.next is that it's so
> abstract. I understand that people who like PRD's and TPS want high
> level descriptions of what we want to do with goals and visions and
> such, and thats great. However, I'm a technical person. I like
> concrete plans and pushing what we can do with the technology we
> have at hand, or helping to make new technology to do what we want.
> 
+1 you found really good words for what's a big part of the problem I
have with Fedora.next

> We are now down to the point where groups have written up their
> PRD documents, and can get down to details. So, I am hopeful in the
> next month or so we will gain a lot more interest in fedora.next
> and more feedback as concrete deliverables are discussed, etc.
> 
> That is my hope at least... we will see. :)

Yeah, we'll see :D

Your words otoh scratched another thought in my head: The PRD
documents (and some of the other docs around Fedora.next) in great
length talk a lot about "how" they want to do something. That up to a
point is needed obviously. But sometimes I miss a few introductions
words on the "why" we want all of that and how it's supposed to make
Fedora better. But that's obviously meta/abstract again, which I
myself criticized earlier. So maybe it's simply this ted talk that
stuck in my head too much:
http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html

Cu
knurd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=BoBF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the devel mailing list