Fwd: Re: "Getting the ball rolling.."
warren at fedoraos.org
Sat Dec 3 19:15:19 UTC 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: "Getting the ball rolling.."
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:13:38 -0800
From: warren <warren at fedoraos.org>
Reply-To: warren at fedoraos.org
To: Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com>
On 12/03/2011 10:23 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:24:15 -0800 warren <warren at fedoraos.org>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>> Here's where I'm currently at (and I will try to make it as
>> crystal clear as possible) before we even go any further.
>> 1. This is a large undertaking, not a one man task and
>> definitely not something only I see. It's *going* to ruffle
>> feathers because things *will* change if this path is taken. You
>> know as well as I do that change is most often not well accepted,
>> regardless of intent or need.
> Agreed. People like status quo. Hopefully we can look beyond that
> though and see things that would help improve.
To me it's not about "hope" it's about coming to an agreement and
deciding how it's *going to be* in fairness to *all* and moving
towards that. "I fell and broke my front teeth, hopefully someday it
will be fixed, I'll just have to wait and see." No. You go to the
dentist and get it fixed. You make a rule and it gets stuck to.
Period, no exceptions. Otherwise there is no order and things
deteriorate again. And I do not exclude myself from this either, I and
everyone else have the ability to decide how we're going to react or
act. I can apologize for acting a certain way but the fact remains
that when I do or say something I chose to do it and I can just as
well choose the opposite.
>> I do however agree that everything should be put to a vote, each
>> item clearly stated, understood and voted for in a peer-viewable
>> and organized manner. i.e. not hidden, obfuscated or obscured in
>> any way.
> I'm not convinced voting is the way to go. I prefer reaching some
> kind of consensus with a rough majority. With voting you get into:
> Who can vote, how long do they need to consider items, what items
> can be put up for a vote by whom, should votes be public or
> private, etc.
> I would like to think that we could craft items such that at least
> a rough majority of people would see the advantage in doing
> them/switching to them.
I'm not sure what "some kind of consensus" is if it's not voting.
Voting is a tally of consensus "should this guy be president?" yes or
no? A clear, fair system is possible and can be arranged without too
>> 2. You seem to be the only with with enough interest to even
> Well, give it time. Some folks are busy... I'd say we should also
> discuss this next week at the sig meeting as well. Perhaps in IRC
> some folks who can't be bothered to subscribe here would chime in.
>> save Thomasj who misread, misinterpreted and simply fired back
>> negatively based on who I am, and not the content or context of
>> the original email to this thread without the benefit of doubt or
>> clarification that he understood what he thought he did. Granted,
>> I should not have replied at all to him based on that alone. It
>> seems we were both ignorant and still have work to do.
>> 3. There are some issues with both FedoraProject.org and
>> FedoraUnity.org pertaining directly to #fedora* IRC channels
>> (I'll be reading the links you sent me later this evening,
>> however I think I may have been the original author of at least
>> one of them although Sonar_Guy posted it on my behalf).
> Yes, you wrote up at least the initial version of what became the
> faq I think. :) Thanks!
Writing, thinking about solutions, noticing patterns and reactions is
what I feel I do best, including changing my own attitude and personal
patterns. I'm happy to drop old nonsense, move on and focus on things
that matter and affect the situation positively. It may be hard to
imagine, but anyone is capable of anything they put their mind and
>> a. FedoraProject - Who is in control of #fedora* it's policies,
>> procedures and direction?
> My understanding (and hopefully someone will correct me if I am
> wrong) is that #fedora* on freenode is a official "group". meaning
> the policies at: http://freenode.net/group_registration.shtml
> Apply. So, ultimately, the Fedora group contact has control. In
> practice I think the Board would be the ultimate aribiter and they
> seem quite happy to allow this SIG to organize and setup policies
> and process for #fedora as they see fit. For other #fedora*
> channels, such policies (if any) are governed by the operators for
> those channels.
Great, I'm not sure if there's an arbitration or dispute resolution
mechanism in place as well but that might also need some
consideration, not only for my own situation but for those that others
face as well. Sweeping things under the carpet is bad practice and
shows a certain lack of responsibility in my mind. Anyone in a
position of power should be able to be trusted to make rational and
clear decisions without letting snap reactions and judgments cloud
>> b. FedoraUnity - Sadly, this project/group has never been well
>> organized in any sane or official fashion, has only one person in
>> control of the domains / structure & organization of content /
>> top-level website CMS configuration which has caused friction
>> between many (who I will not name but let them make their own
>> statements), is not an official part of the FedoraProject and
>> therefore can do "whatever" without any direct oversight or
>> consequence by the FedoraProject. I've heard before on multiple
>> occasions "No one can make any top level changes because it's
>> been so highly customized none of us even know where to begin."
>> Which I've seen myself having paid the hosting bill for a few
>> years and helping manage aspects of the Zope/Plone website which
>> is now horribly out of date.
> I think this is beyond the scope of this list/group.
This again to me is sidestepping the issue and avoiding the obvious
distaste you'll receive from others involved and with power at stake.
This issue is certainly part of it because these help resources are
continually referenced in #fedora, so yes, very relevant. Again I have
ideas for solutions to this however, I don't want to put time or
energy into something that will ultimately go nowhere.
>> 4. The "good ol' boy" club attitude, looking the other way at bad
>> behavior simply based on who offender is, what feet might be
>> stepped on, who might be offended, etc rather than the actual
>> behavior itself and whether it's acceptable. People concerned
>> with maintaining power, driving the direction of things or
>> stunting changes simply to control them have questionable
>> intentions in my opinion. It should not matter if it's a channel
>> op or someone who's just come in for the first time.
> Yes, agreed.
>> 5. Anyone not currently active on such a regular basis as
>> required by the task they are in control of should be required
>> to hand over the reigns to someone who is active and qualified
>> for the task. You don't take on tasks or responsibilities that
>> require ongoing attention then neglect or abandon them and
>> perform them whenever it suits your fancy. This goes for
>> everyone from ops to website maintainers, program coordinators,
>> etc, really any job that requires regular attention. This is how
>> things fall this badly into disrepair in the first place.
> Also agreed, however: This is a volunteer group. Peoples time
> commitment varies as their other dayjob or life presses in. Also,
> some tasks are not easy to define. To be an operator should
> someone police the channel for 20 hours a week? 5? 1? 10min? And
> would they 'clock in' or how do you keep track?
> If you are unable to help out in the channel at all for 2 weeks,
> but then can help out a lot the next, should you have been
> I think this sort of thing works much more when there are specific
> deliverables: You must send a TPS report every friday or we fire
> you. Instead of: you must help out as much as you are able to.
It is indeed volunteer, and before making such commitments it's up to
the volunteer to accept full responsibility for any such commitments
before accepting them. Making excuses about other obligations might
work in an emergency situation, but not as a regular thing. That's a
pattern and one that gets the entire project into disrepair if allowed
to grow or become passively accepted. And again, problems are only
solutions waiting to happen, not excuses waiting to happen. All of
this can be sorted out with enough initiative and thought. I don't get
too specific yet, because as I already stated, if no one cares, I'm
not going to count grains of sand at the beach to determine how many
>> 6. As for dealing with users posting outdated, false, misleading
>> or outright bad info, this is why I propose a unified help front
>> that is 100% in control of the FedoraProject. Sending people to
>> the FedoraProject Wiki for one thing, FedoraSolved for another,
>> FedoraForum for yet another.. It's confusing and shows
>> discontinuity to the new and existing users whether they realize
>> it consciously or subconsciously. If there was a unified front
>> and the channel policy was only to send people to these help
>> resources it would flow much more smoothly. Please see
>> #wordpress wordpress.org and/or talk to Freenode IRC operator
>> Sivel for examples on how this might be accomplished.
> Well, I think this is again good in principal... but what if there
> is a great other resource not on those sites that would really
> help the user? Ignore it and tell them we have no info?
If there's another great resource, then we set up guidelines that are
followed for what is an acceptable resource such as compiling from
source, downloading random or incorrect rpms, suggesting that SELinux
be disabled, turning off iptables.. etc. These are some common
well-known things among the experienced and simply suggestions for
such guidelines. After something passes these guidelines it can then
be created, edited and formatted for inclusion in official help
resources in a "work-flow" type scenario. There's clearly enough
people in the community to make this happen with relative ease once a
system is developed and in place.
>> Again, I have lots of valid ideas and possible solutions for
>> much of the above but yelling in an empty auditorium won't get
>> anyone anywhere. If Fedora is to be the "best" in its product
>> offering, support and general appeal then the work to this end
>> never stops. The above items are clear indications to me and
>> others in the community where change is badly needed. It's
>> certainly possible, the only real question is if anyone else is
>> willing to do the heavy lifting.
> Sure, lets see if others chime in...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the irc-support-sig