[FAmSCo] response to Joerg's comments was re: 2010 meetings

Joerg Simon jsimon at fedoraproject.org
Wed Jan 13 09:17:27 UTC 2010

Ok some more points to clarify my pov.  I think we all are mature people and 
know that conflicts and sensible issues appear. To deal with them in a 
constructive way, can make it a benefit. My originial mail was sent to the 
"closed" famsco mailing list, and i had loved to discuss it with famsco behind 
closed doors first, i am convinced that to much public discussions about 
sensible points can also make harm to the fedora project and can be very 
demotivating for contributors - and there should be found a consents first 
before bring it public. But we decided to make it open, so be it ;)

On Monday 11 January 2010 02:34:33 David Nalley wrote:
> A majority of issues contained herein are outside
> the purview of famsco but I have still provided an opinion.

David you are right that we as famsco can not directly change or clarify some 
of the stated points which are just examples for a situation we have right now 
in fedora. From what i could read in all the lists and discussions it is 
considered right within the fedoraproject to hurt a minority for the greater 
benefit of fedora. All the points affects us as Ambassadors, because we have to 
transport the message about the project itself. If "active" contributors from 
different groups inside fedora talk to me and tell me their concerns, it has 
something to do with the honesty of our message that we spread! We should at 
least know about these issues to not make the same mistakes.

> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Joerg Simon <jsimon at fedoraproject.org> 
> Strangely - I think there is at least a part of RHT that acknowledges
> that trying to exert control is counterproductive. You 'gain control'
> rather by contributing. They certainly understand this with regards to
> the kernel. I am cognizant that this knowledge must not be pervasive
> throughout.

Right, as we can see at the current discussion at the advisory board about 
spins ;) - i hope i do not speak to much OT ;) now.
As a person who work on the security lab myself, it shows me that some did not 
get the idea behind the spins. For them it is just a kickstart file. If people 
ask me to provide them something for teaching classes security-testing-
methods. I would hate to guide them to other distros like "backtrack" or 
something like that, i would love to give them our fedora-security-lab - where 
a proper testpath is implemented in the menus and testprocess is considered in 
the framework of tools, related documentation about testing methodolgies, 
thread modeling and risk assessment is available on the lab. There are 
application which would never got packaged without the FEL Group or active 
contributors who had never changed from debian to fedora. So maybe Groups that 
work on a spin or a lab-framework are also SIG's just with another name. 

Another example, sure i am personally not really happy that people from the 
fedoraproject do their own lxde-booth with the fedora lxde-spin at the same 
event(CLT) and split our power - but if they want to do it, we encourage and 
help them because what they do on lxde is also good for fedora.

The other points from my email were mostly just examples which were brought to 
me from contributors which describe the situation and what they feel about 

I just wanted to let you know that we have to consider that there a some 
sensible points raised and we should consider the big picture in our group 
because we are in front to transport a valid message!

thanks ;)
Joerg (kital) Simon
jsimon at fedoraproject.org
Key Fingerprint:
3691 0989 2DCA 58A2 8D1F 2CAC C823 558E 5B5B 5688
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/famsco/attachments/20100113/fcddbccd/attachment.bin 

More information about the famsco mailing list