Summary of previous discussions around FOSCo
lwhite at fishjump.com
Mon Mar 23 12:47:26 UTC 2015
On Mar 22, 2015 3:19 PM, "Pete Travis" <me at petetravis.com> wrote:
> On 03/20/2015 11:10 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 08:15 +0700, Truong Anh. Tuan wrote:
> >> Thanks Christoph for summarizing all up.
> > Hi everyone,
> > I posted this on the trac ticket
> > (https://fedorahosted.org/famsco/ticket/373#comment:7) ,but since the
> > discussion seems to have moved here, I'm posting here too:
> > So, the problem, as Matthew states in the ticket description is:
> > "Meanwhile, the project really lacks coordination between various areas
> > of outreach — Ambassadors, Marketing, Design Team (which is responsible
> > for branding), and support efforts like Ask Fedora and even
> > Documentation and Web. This may also include areas of the new
> > Fedora.next Working Groups which touch on these areas — branding,
> > marketing, conference attendance in support of a particular product, and
> > etc. "
> > I'm slightly at a loss to see how a new body solves this issue - I've
> > seen the activity on the various lists and tracs and it's not really
> > clear to me that the goal of FOSCo is to improve the communication
> > between teams.
> > For example, I just saw a ticket on the fosco trac that said "Arrange
> > University install-fests" and another that said "Find pilot university
> > for Fedora lab deployment" and another that said "FOSS Alternatives
> > Resource Page". These really appear to be just normal ambassador team
> > tasks, which they've been doing for quite a long time.
> > I mean, if you read the problem statement, a simple solution could be:
> > - regular multi team meets - people from the various teams sit in, say
> > what's happening, what team A needs from team B, what team C needs from
> > team A and B and so on?
> > - if necessary, representatives can be appointed in the various teams,
> > or we can take turns and so on (this part can be handled by the teams
> > themselves)
> > This still doesn't quite feel like it needs an official new body, with
> > elections and so on. Each team has active contributors - ambassadors,
> > which is the largest has famsco + regional leads to spread the word and
> > co-ordinate them - other teams are much smaller and don't need this
> > governance model - the simplest solution seems to be to get them to
> > speak to each other and keep up with each others activities - and this
> > can be done without major restructuring of
> > famsco/fosco/ambassadors/other teams.
> > Also, in the name FOSCo, the word "Outreach" could possibly be
> > misconstrued as increasing contributors/participation and so on (on the
> > lines of the gnome outreach programme - https://www.gnome.org//opw/).
> > Is *this* the function of FOSCo? It would explain why the fosco trac has
> > tickets for install fests and so on it. But, this is completely
> > different from increasing communication between teams (internal
> > community outreach vs external outreach?). Even the e-mail that was sent
> > out with the proposal said:
> > "The idea is to transform FAmSCo into Fedora Outreach Steering
> > Committee, representing and coordinating Ambassadors, Marketing, Design
> > Team (which is responsible for branding), and support efforts like Ask
> > Fedora and even Documentation and Web. It would also include areas of
> > the new Fedora.next Working Groups which touch on these areas —
> > branding, marketing, conference attendance in support of a particular
> > product, and etc. (Not to _rule_ them, but to coordinate and enable.)"
> > which doesn't say anything about the gnome style outreach.
> > So, I guess what I'm wondering is:
> > - what is the purpose of FOSCo
> > - if it is indeed to increase communication/co-ordination between teams
> > within the community, do we really need another body?
> > - else, if the purpose of FOSCo isn't yet completely clear, we probably
> > need to take a step back and figure it out before we start working on
> > things?
> > What do you think?
> I share these concerns. Initially, I was interpreting the intent of the
> Outreach Steering Committee to be collaboration on all user facing
> efforts, with representation from any interested groups, SIGs, or
> individuals. This seems like a great idea; I'm concerned that many
> community members work diligently in their own space but may not track
> efforts in other areas, or give special attention to communicating their
> own efforts with the larger community. Efforts directed towards
> improving internal cooperation would make outward-facing efforts more
> effective and develop a stronger sense of community.
> But, nothing happened here for a while; it was looking like an idea
> without a vision. Now, as things start to move forward, the vision of
> this group I observe is very different from what I thought we all
> shared. The tickets and list traffic lately reflect a group dedicated
> to providing direction and support to ambassadors. I'm fine with that,
> but if that's what is going on, it seems more honest to call it the
> Fedora Ambassadors Steering Committee, and encourage that group of folks
> to work with marketing and design folks on establishing common goals. A
> voting seat on a leadership committee should not be a prerequisite for
> communication between groups.
> -- Pete
On a related note (IMHO), I think it would be worthwhile to establish
metrics by which the org/team can be considered successful. A few metrics
established before the formation (or not) of the team might simplify the
answers to these questions and show, formally, what the priorities are for
"outreach." Completely off the cuff, perhaps a number of x-team initiatives
per qtr / 6 months, number of install-fests, meetups, surveys (e.g. "what
is fedora" or "website feedback"), etc.
> outreach mailing list
> outreach at lists.fedoraproject.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the outreach