Is it irrelevant what users of FOSS think? (Re: Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, "Why?"))

[lee]

Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> writes:

> On 03/24/2014 09:22 AM, lee wrote:
>> The ones making packages probably have more influence.  Is it
>> supposed to be like that?
>> 
>
>
> Frankly, yes. Feedback on a list is fine, but anyone can say "Hey, I
> wish it was more like this:", but ultimately it will be up to someone
> to actually implement that change. The ones who go and do the work are
> the ones who have the final say on what happens.

Sure, and the ones who do the work can`t very well ask the users for
every little detail of an implementation.  Still that someone needs to
do the work doesn`t mean that the ones doing it /should/ have more
influence by default.

> Very little change or improvement ever happens because a lot of people
> talked about doing something for years. Things change because someone
> actually goes and makes it happen. That's the culture we try to
> encourage in Fedora.

Then it is irrelevant what the users think unless they care to and
manage to find some way to make it happen --- and once they do that,
they aren`t users anymore.  It means that users are not involved in
making a distribution and not concerned with things like leading the
advancement of FOSS.

This makes the whole discussion about Fedora.next off-topic here,
doesn`t it?

>>> That's why we have Gnome, KDE, LXDE, and MATE-Compiz desktop
>>> spins -- and, pointedly, not a fvwm one. If you really think that
>>> this is the best course for Fedora, I encourage you to step up
>>> and create one. (See
>>> <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Process>.)
>> 
>> I don`t understand why every possible choice should require making
>> a distribution on it`s own.
>> 
>
> You're confusing a spin with a distribution (and a product with a
> distribution).

Perhaps --- I know I can download different life systems to install
Fedora which come with different "desktop environments".  That presents
itself as a bunch of different distributions which are all Fedora, with
one of them apparently being the "original" and the only apparent
difference being that they install different "desktop environments" by
default.  Since I`m not using any of them, it doesn`t matter which
distributions I pick, so I picked what seems to be the "original",
vaguely guessing that it might be the most complete and perhaps best
thought out one, and go from there.

Whether one or some of these distributions is or are called "spin" or
"product" is irrelevant for me.  It only makes me wonder why I can`t
download an installer, preferably a life system, and install from there,
choosing what I want to have when I`m about to install.  Will I miss
something and/or not be able to have it when I download the installer
for the "original", or for one of the others?

That`s merely "user experience".  Why make it confusing for the user?

> Both products and spins are curated sets of packages from a single
> distribution (Fedora). Each one has its own reason for existing (in
> the case of the desktop spins, it's basically to show off a particular
> piece of technology).

Why would that require it`s own distribution?  Can`t I just choose to
install that particular piece of technology when I want to try it out?

> For the Products, we're working to establish specific *solutions*.
> Recognizing that most people install an operating system so that,
> well, they can operate their system, we're trying to build solutions
> for three common use-cases so that newcomers to the Fedora Project
> don't feel like they need to make a thousand individual package
> choices to get their system running.

Why would that require different distributions?  Just have something
like what Debian calls "tasks", i. e. particular pre-defined package
selections users can choose from when installing.  That would be less
confusing.

> There will always be people who want to do that, and we'll continue to
> cater to them by having the wider package set remain available (as
> well as the spins process so people who care enough can build new
> install-and-deployment media).

That seems a really strange way of doing things, and it makes me think
it`s overly complicated and wastes a lot of effort in that so many
different distributions have to be created instead of just making one
distribution that lets users pick what they want.  And what if I pick
"product A", whatever that might be, because I need Z, and then I find
that I need X from "product B" as well.  I can`t have it because I made
the wrong pick and need to create another distribution myself to get it
because there is no Fedora distribution that has both X and Z?

No wonder that people don`t use Fedora ...

>>> getting user input into Fedora. How could that be done better?
>>> Surveys? More user testing? An active "User Feedback SIG"?
>> 
>> I think that a mailing list like this one can provide a lot of
>> input
>
> Mailing lists are a *start*, but you also have to recognize that
> you're dealing with a self-selected set of responders.
> [...]
> This is traditionally a set of people who have established their own
> ways of working around (and sometimes mentally blocking) some of the
> more painful parts of the Fedora experience.

And this set would be quite different from what Fedora thinks it`s user
base[1] is, or should be.

What actually is the user base?


[1]: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base

> Put another way, limiting our source of input to the mailing list
> would be fundamentally equivalent to devising a project's budget
> estimate by only talking to the engineers. By not talking to
> marketing, quality-assurance, capital expenditures, facilities, etc.,
> you'd come up with an inaccurate view.

I`m not saying the input should be limited to what can be found on
mailing lists like this one.

If what users think is supposed to be relevant, and if the assumed user
base is to be considered, you`d have to get input from people who never
have used Fedora just as much as from the people using it.

Since we seem to have established that what users think is irrelevant
unless they make it happen themselves, you remain pretty limited to the
sub-set of the self-selected responders you already have --- i. e. the
people that make something happen --- and there is nothing wrong with
that because you say it is supposed to be like this and will never be
any different.

That partly answers your question whether the Fedora project is
positioned to lead the advancement of FOSS, and the answer is "no".

Perhaps the way out of this is to change your thinking.  Until then, no
more input from users is required, and Fedora has to remain limited to
what the people who make something happen might come up with.

>> How do you currently find out what users want?
>> 
>
> In my experience, we almost never find out what users want. We *often*
> hear after the fact what they don't like, but we rarely if ever hear
> recommendations ahead of time.

Why is that?  Because users aren`t aware of what`s coming up, and those
who are don`t have a way to be listened to?

> Furthermore, users are often REALLY BAD at knowing what they actually
> want.
> [...]
> The moral here is that what they asked for and what they needed were
> not the same thing.

Even matter of factly so :)  You had to figure it out together with
them.  Bug reports are not very well suited for that; unless they are
feature requests, they don`t deal with what users want, but with bugs.

When they are feature requests, you right away doubt that what the users
want might be what they need, and feature requests in a bug-tracking
system are not very well suited to figure it out together with them, are
they?

At last, the users might be rather happy with what they have, and in
that case, the problem that they might not need what they want doesn`t
apply.  Trying to give them something else instead is bound to meet
resistance.  They just picked something, and it`s fine.  Change it,
and/or try to give them something else, and you make them unhappy.
(That seems to happen *often*, as you say?)

You could say that Fedora has the wrong users, and that Fedora.next may
need to reconsider the assumed user base.

Suppose I`d say that Fedora is an experimental Linux distribution not
designed for "ordinary users" but for package managers.  Fedora.next is
an attempt to solidify this.  Would I be too wrong?


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)