18:33:38 #startmeeting FAB 18:33:38 Meeting started Tue Aug 17 18:33:38 2010 UTC. The chair is mmcgrath. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:33:38 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:33:38 heh :-) 18:33:41 we can at least do that. 18:33:46 ubuntu - goals = whatever mr shuttleworth wants 18:33:56 debian - goals = we'll get somewhere eventually in an organic way 18:33:58 #link http://toshio.fedorapeople.org/orgchart.svg 18:34:05 gnome - goals = oh boy 18:34:15 Perhaps -- we could try to think of good examples instead of counter examples? ;-) 18:34:22 abadger1999: sorry did you think the board should or should not be setting goals for the OS. 18:34:24 gnome has a similar polished product vs bucket of parts issue 18:34:33 abadger1999, what i'm trying to point out is that i don't think any floss projects do it right 18:34:38 18:34:42 so proprietary models i think is all we can look to inode0 18:34:45 fwiw 18:34:47 Does anyone do it better? Or better in some area? 18:34:59 maybe firefox 18:35:14 firefox ends up with a well marketed and polished product in the end 18:35:17 but i dont know how they get there 18:35:20 * inode0 is about as sad as inode0 can get hearing that from the Fedora Board 18:35:30 inode0, im not speaking for the board im speaking for myself 18:35:37 inode0: the board isn't actually here :) 18:35:40 inode0, if you have any examples pleas feel free to offer them up 18:35:55 * mizmo doesn't know enough about firefox to use that 18:36:08 chromium of course is another example of doing it wrong 18:36:16 it seems like if you have a strong vision you do the floss bits wrong 18:36:28 mizmo: I've got a blog post coming later this week about that very thing :) 18:36:37 mmcgrath, is it either/or ? :( 18:36:51 naw, just a comment on the current state of the stack. 18:37:02 could we perhaps enumerate the places/things our current model fails at? ie, what needs to be fixed? 18:37:13 where lots of places are using core free(bsd)ish and them getting more proprietary as they get closer to the user. 18:37:15 - no clear idea which body to go to for something? 18:37:30 - there is no clear vision as to what fedora actually is, so designing a nice website and other marketing collateral is a nightmare 18:37:42 mizmo: I'm convinced we won't ever get that. 18:37:42 we are an example of doing it wrong too - so stop discarding everything in the world that isn't perfect please 18:37:45 I think it would be wise to actually frame strategy in way where the community can actually participate in the steps leading up to the decisions of the strategy. 18:37:51 that includes things like: 18:38:08 * figuring out who we are today - which includes figuring out data, talking to people, actually listening... 18:38:28 I think we should just start over. 18:38:33 * talking about the various places we want to be 2 years from now, and 5 years from now - and letting people who want to run off on those tangents do so, and present those elements. 18:38:42 once we get to Fedora 15, call it off. Re name, re brand, re org and re-do everything. 18:38:58 rbergeron, to an extent a lot of that has been done 18:39:00 when we know what we want to do - where we want to be 5 years from now - figure out what those steps are to doing that. 18:39:18 the problem is there are at least 3 main opinions on where we want to be 5 years from now and it's not exactly something that can be reconciled 18:39:26 we have tons of data on where we are at now 18:39:51 see this one point we get ourselves into trouble - I don't want you or anyone else deciding today where "we" want to be in 5 years 18:40:02 has that been presented in a concise fashion - so that we know who we are, and we know what is logical and feasible to get us to where we want to be in some period of time? 18:40:10 inode0: do you want us to have no 5 year plan at all? 18:40:33 it would have to be a pretty fluffy plan 18:40:41 All I've seen is that we have a user base and a vision - that doesn't define concrete goals - doesn't define any milestones. 18:40:43 inode0, certainly folks 5 year visions can be (and have been) discussed and clustered into the 3 main groups i mentioned 18:40:50 * rbergeron notes that pretty much every 5 year plan at every company changes every year 18:40:58 rbergeron, we don't have a vision, where have you seen that? 18:41:02 because we have no idea where the community or technology will drive things in 5 years 18:41:04 and it's not really 5 years, more like 3 18:41:22 mizmo: what are the 3 main groups as you see them? 18:41:25 inode0, if nobody decides it, then nothing happens, then we are debian 18:41:28 inode0, i dont think we want to be debian 18:41:40 nirik, #1 hackers desktop #2 consumer's desktop #3 bucket of parts 18:41:43 mizmo: how did we get here without one? 18:41:53 inode0, by ambling around in an unsustainable manner 18:41:59 mizmo: mmm legos 18:42:04 okay, i retract the word vision - mission is what i mean 18:42:09 it worked much better when we were much smaller 18:42:19 * nirik wonders if we lost abadger1999 on this tangent. 18:42:24 inode0, we can keep ambling about in an unsustainable manner but since it's unsustainable it'll all dry up unless we do something 18:42:30 nirik: Yep. 18:42:34 abadger1999: what issues do you see in our current model that need fixing? 18:42:45 mmcgrath: that is fine, scale doesn't mean we turn into a micromanaged from the top corporate structure though 18:42:55 So we've been on this tangent for 10 minutes, can we sum up one thing to do and move on? 18:42:55 if it does I don't much care 18:42:59 but does it mean we should be goal less? 18:43:28 Like -- be on the lookout for governance ideas that are *good* in other FOSS projects. 18:43:34 abadger1999, summary: we have no idea what our goals or nor do we agree on what they should be. this is impeding progress on a number of fronts and resulting in contributor dissatisfaction and burnout 18:43:35 abadger1999: yeah. 18:43:46 abadger1999: but most other FOSS projects are tiny compared to us 18:43:58 oh and we can't agree on how to set goals or who should set them 18:44:04 mmcgrath: We'll figure out if scalability is a factor after the idea is pointed out :-) 18:44:33 Okay so nirik's question is: problems with the current model. 18:44:40 #topic problems with the current model 18:44:40 * rbergeron notes that goals are important - but our goals should define our target audience - and not vice versa. 18:44:40 the problem if we pick one of those 3 groups you mentioned: the other 2 groups get shafted. 18:44:57 mmcgrath: Could you chair all of us? 18:45:28 #chair nirik 18:45:28 Current chairs: mmcgrath nirik 18:45:28 abadger1999: I think something reasonable to do would be for people to actually look at the governance models of other groups and list out points of what is good and bad . 18:45:30 #chair abadger1999 18:45:30 Current chairs: abadger1999 mmcgrath nirik 18:45:31 #chair inode0 18:45:31 Current chairs: abadger1999 inode0 mmcgrath nirik 18:45:35 #chair mizmo 18:45:35 Current chairs: abadger1999 inode0 mizmo mmcgrath nirik 18:45:38 #chair rbergeron 18:45:38 Current chairs: abadger1999 inode0 mizmo mmcgrath nirik rbergeron 18:45:42 #chair skvidal 18:45:42 Current chairs: abadger1999 inode0 mizmo mmcgrath nirik rbergeron skvidal 18:45:46 did I miss anyone? 18:46:17 #action look at the governance models of other groups and list out points of what is good and bad 18:46:51 I'm not against changing our governance... but I'd like it to be worth while and have a chance of addressing issues. Of course we need to know what those issues are.. 18:46:52 I think to have a list of what items there are to be observed might be a good way to have apples to apples comparisons - and not keep going down ratholes. 18:46:57 not to be a negative nancy, does anyone here have any confidence we'll have any changes organizationally in the next couple of years? 18:47:02 * mmcgrath doesn't 18:47:14 we've been working on it for a couple of years already with no changes. 18:47:23 #topic Issues with the current model 18:47:25 Having a list of what people think is wrong with our current governance model - and it doesn't have to be concensus at this point - just a freakin list - would be valueable. 18:47:43 Something with sentences that are fairly short - and not a mailing list thread that is 100 pages long. 18:47:49 well... 18:48:00 #idea no one is responsible for planning what n+1 should be. much less n+2 or n+3. 18:48:01 * confusion as to which body to address for some issues. 18:48:01 #1) Do we have a problem 18:48:06 1) yes 18:48:14 #2) What are the problems 18:48:23 2) people don't want what we're building. 18:48:32 2) we don't even know what we're building 18:48:41 #info confusion as to which body to address for some issues. 18:48:44 2) there's apparently no clear ownership of who gets to decide what we build 18:48:58 "a Linux-based operating system that provides users with access to the latest free and open source software, in a stable, secure and easy to manage form" 18:49:12 #info confusion as to which body to run for/vote for in order to influence the action taken on an issue 18:49:13 * inode0 just wants to make the observation that it isn't the governance model that is the root cause the problems - changes might help, but aren't a solution 18:49:21 nirik: conflicting ideas there. 18:49:36 mmcgrath: yep. 18:49:40 secure and easy for one, and latest and stable :) 18:49:43 so that means someone has to decide the tradeoff 18:49:49 nirik, if only it were that simple :( 18:50:06 yeah, we're not really in charge of our future there unfortunately 18:50:07 mizmo: Can I rephrase you're #2 as Who decides what we're building? I think we're more thinking about the structure than the actual plan for the distro. 18:50:14 mizmo: yeah, I know we have had this discussion before. ;) 18:50:16 that makes it difficult for Fedora like it does with no other distribution. 18:50:21 abadger1999, sure 18:50:45 #info Who decides what we're building? 18:51:11 #info who mediates the tradeoffs when aspects of the vision conflict 18:53:14 can we expand on the 'Who decides what we're building?' In what sense? you mean who are we building for? or specific packages? or ? 18:53:25 I want to put something in about should someone be representing the contributors? 18:53:27 * rdieter stumbles in. hi. reading backlog. 18:53:31 and #3 - how do other communities circumvent these problems - what are good and bad points of governance models and strategy decision making in other communities - how can we pluck the good parts and apply them to fedora - while still retaining a sense of being our own project - without adopting strategies and visions that do not differentiate us in some way? 18:53:44 wow, that's like, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - 12, etc 18:53:54 i think in general its a challenge 18:53:59 i dont think anyone has solved it 18:54:24 its open design 18:54:46 #info Who is charged with listening to contributor concerns and making sure they're addressed? 18:54:56 nobody :) 18:55:09 Right -- that's why it's an issue with the current system :-) 18:55:29 #info Who's charged with telling contributors their concerns won't be addressed. 18:55:34 well, depends on the concern? 18:55:34 we can't please everyone. 18:55:34 we've talked about an ombudsman before 18:55:36 the board does that 18:55:45 I've never seen the board actually do that :) 18:55:45 i hear contributor concerns quite frequently and bring them up in board meetings 18:55:57 for example, the private content in our phone meetings - and we worked out a solution to it 18:56:10 I think if it's a technical thing fesco could, and if it's a more general thing board, and if they don't like the fesco answer they can go to the board? 18:56:19 * rbergeron notes that strategy in companies is somewhat different, yet somewhat similar - there is a chairman, there is a board - and there are shareholders who wield significant voting power to kick people out if they feel the company is going in the wrong places. 18:56:22 #info the idea that the board is for strategy and fesco for tactical (when fesco is elected) seems prone to disaster. 18:56:36 in what way? 18:56:48 neither group should be charged with both. 18:57:43 I don't have a problem with fesco being charged with both 18:57:51 Perhaps the strategists should be elected by the constituency, but the tacticians should be at least partially appointed by the strategists 18:57:53 I do 18:57:55 why is that a problem? 18:57:58 no oversite of any kind 18:58:06 there can still be oversight 18:58:08 so if they're doing a crappy job, a good job, no one will even be looking. 18:58:15 Term limits? 18:58:25 does strategy necessarily have to come from the top ? Can't it come from SIGs/groups doing the work? 18:58:26 mmcgrath: Just before we started logging with zodbot, mizmo nirik and I arrived at the conclusion that having one volunteer group decide on vision and expecting a different volunteer group implement it means that when the two groups conflict, the implementation won't get done or won't get done well. 18:58:28 besides, FESCo hasn't shown any ability to put forth strategy anyway. 18:58:30 the board can have oversight 18:58:35 is fesco is a group of folks who are technical, i think charging fesco with both strategy and tactical is a bad idea 18:58:42 not that the board has done much better. 18:59:01 abadger1999: why is that a conflict, that sounds like an org charg. 18:59:04 err org chart. 18:59:05 abadger1999, mmcgrath: if the board does strategy and fesco does tactics, and each has a different conflicting vision, no useful work will be done was the point i made 18:59:17 kinds means that fedora in general has to be closer to the "bucket of parts" characterization 18:59:21 except that in that scenario fesco doesn't have a vision. 18:59:30 fesco works hard to turn board's plans into reality. 18:59:37 it's hard to steer the boat from the engine room, but also hard to do so from the wheelhouse when the engine room people don't give you any power or someone weighs the anchor. ;) 18:59:38 we are speaking in the abstract, fesco can be whatever we frame them to be once we know what they are supposed to be :) 18:59:40 that's how the infrastructure team works now generally. 19:00:17 we have some of our own goals and stuff but we're mostly here to facilitate the needs of others. 19:00:23 mmcgrath: Diffference with infrastructure -- we aren't elected. 19:00:26 rdieter, i dont understand your point re bucket of parts? 19:00:27 when jesse says jump, I say how high. 19:00:30 Instead we show up and work on what we want. 19:00:34 abadger1999: but we have a lot of volunteers. 19:00:37 With certain people paid to fill in the gaps. 19:00:43 elected or not we're here to help. 19:00:57 mizmo: way back at the beginning... 19:01:00 you mentioned, [13:46] nirik, #1 hackers desktop #2 consumer's desktop #3 bucket of parts 19:01:01 mmcgrath: With the board vs fesco, we've elected both bodies to be decision making entities. 19:01:15 Might I suggest a completely different approach? 19:01:16 not quite 19:01:26 abadger1999: wlel, partially in the case of the board (partially elected) 19:01:41 rdieter, right, but i dont get the point youre trying to make around that? "kinds means" <=? 19:01:48 I'm going on the record right now to say this: We don't have what it takes to solve this problem. 19:02:00 what do we need? 19:02:03 mmcgrath: pessimist. ;) 19:02:14 rbergeron: I wish I knew, but we've been going on for years without progress. 19:02:20 * rbergeron grins 19:02:21 and it dawns on me I don't see any progress on the horizon. 19:02:37 meanwhile our own users have spoken, they don't want what we've got. 19:02:37 mizmo: my point was the work to any of that happen (including vision), doesn't come from the top or even fesco for the most part, but from individual teams, contributors, and SIGs. 19:02:45 to make any of that happen 19:03:07 maybe vision is a bad term here 19:03:22 plans for F+1, F+2, F+3 then. 19:03:25 What if FESCo was not a unified body but a selection of positions being filled to accomplish a particular goal decided upon by the Board? 19:03:37 rdieter, to make any of what happen? 19:03:53 I thought part of your point was that fedora lacked vision and direction. 19:04:03 am I wrong? 19:04:38 Instead of nine individual committee members, have three goals (per Fedora release) each with three members of FESCo voted in to oversee that those goals are met 19:04:47 sgallagh: a bunch of czars? updates / package maintainer relations / features / etc? 19:04:59 nirik: That could also work 19:05:02 Okay -- seems like we're ready to move on from issues. 19:05:03 sgallagh: an example goal being? 19:05:10 Shall we move to brainstorming? 19:05:23 #topic pie in the sky brainstorming 19:05:43 #idea - Kill Fedora after 15. Re org, re brand, re design, re do everything from the ground up. 19:06:04 Fedora 15: 1) Improve boot times, 2) Improve the quality of 3D support in video 3) Re-review packages to ensure they haven't gone out of compliance 19:06:05 For example 19:06:06 mmcgrath: how does that help? do you think we could have a better goal then? 19:06:20 sgallagh: the problem with that is that we can't force that to happen. 19:06:25 nirik: beats me, I just know status quo isn't better 19:06:38 sgallagh: I don't know anything about 3d graphics card programming. How can I make that happen in a specific release? 19:06:43 mmcgrath: i think we are providing something useful 19:06:46 I think FESCo and the boards history needs to be destroyed. 19:06:53 and completely re-thought. 19:07:12 no history, no what they did before. Something completely different from what they are today. 19:07:14 mmcgrath: not that things couldn't be fixed, but we need fewer things that cause regressions 19:07:23 nirik: That would be the duty of three FESCo folks to interface with the Nouveau and ATI xorg teams 19:07:26 if you want to talk about the OS, yes. I agree. 19:07:33 oh 19:07:46 regressions are bad. cowboy developers are bad too. we've got lots of it. 19:07:47 nirik: Also, those were just off-the-cuff examples. 19:07:48 sgallagh: Would we vote those slots or assign them? 19:07:49 rdieter, yes i believe fedora lacks vision and direction 19:07:53 mmcgrath: nuclear option. you're evil. 19:07:57 mmcgrath: so by "kill fedora" you mean...what exactly? 19:07:57 sgallagh: the problem is that this is not a company. I can't take my budget and hire someone to work on goal X. If someone doesn't show up, we are just stuck. 19:08:04 If you think we should vote them, what is the advantage there? 19:08:19 abadger1999: I think that the board should propose a set of, say 10 goals and the community should vote on which three go into a release 19:08:28 rdieter: aren't you getting bored by now? We've gone through this 15 times now. The extras core merge was interesting. But our dwindling numbers just make things dull. 19:08:44 walters: exactly that. Fedora didn't exist before it was created, it can not exist after it's gone. 19:08:46 fesco has only the power to say no, and the ability of it's members (and to a lesser extent the ability to ask for people to do something nicely) 19:09:01 mizmo: ok, I'm just saying that said vision/direction should come from those doing the work to produce stuff (desktop team, sigs), not necessarily from the board 19:09:24 rdieter, i dont determine the vision for the united states of america, i elect a president and representatives.... 19:09:30 walters: I'm more advocating that small incremental changes aren't working for us here. 19:09:31 mizmo: unless said vision will magically help said groups get their work done better, be more efficient 19:09:49 so we need a large drastic change, since the topic is pie in the sky brainstorming. I went straight to the sky. 19:09:50 rdieter, i dont really think a huge crowd of people is an efficient way to work out a cohesive and achievable vision for a product 19:09:52 #idea instead of fixing governance models - instead of band-aiding a target audience that clearly people disagree with - have a separate (non-fesco, non-board) volunteer group figure out (a) what the best method is for the community to develop a strategy and vision - how to best get buy-in in development of a strategic plan from as many community members as possible - and figure out a timeline to executing the delivery of that plan... 19:10:04 mmcgrath: I'm not opposed to the idea, if we can see that a new setup would help us with current issues or has a chance to, etc. 19:10:22 rbergeron: Good idea. 19:10:30 mizmo: ok, I'd venture we disagree on that you see fedora as a single product or don't necessarily agree on the definition of what that produce is. 19:10:37 mizmo: and see where that gets us 19:10:39 #idea get rid of the board and fesco. Re create groups we actually need with clearly defined roles. It might be 5 groups it might be 1 group. 19:10:39 man that came out bad. 19:10:57 nirik: FESCo has the power to say no, correct. Which means they CAN say "no, we shouldn't accept this brand-new feature right now, this release's stated goal is stability" (for example) 19:11:02 rdieter, we cant even agree on what fedora is 19:11:09 sgallagh: yep. 19:11:09 rdieter, this is crowd thinking 19:11:20 this fiefdom wnat sthis, that fiefdom wants that 19:11:30 i'll call them 'fedora dialects' 19:11:44 * inode0 largely agrees with rdieter 19:12:03 I think our major problem is that (a) we have lack of community buy-in, and (b) I think we have some feelings in the community that the Board is not listening to the community. If people aren't buying in, and they feel like they are not being heard, and they feel like they are shut out of participating in development of anything - they will never buy in. Allow people to participate in parts of the process - even if they feel that the 19:12:07 ok, fair enough. I tend to think that's fedora's strenth, it's diversity and fiefdom's. esp in how they all work together 19:12:24 Another pie-in-the-sky idea: why not stop producing Fedora as a distro entirely, and start giving more creative control to the individual SIGs for doing spins? 19:12:32 mizmo: So something that I've been thinking lately that ties into this is that Ubuntu could not be successful without being able to build on Debian. 19:12:40 #idea Another pie-in-the-sky idea: why not stop producing Fedora as a distro entirely, and start giving more creative control to the individual SIGs for doing spins? 19:12:52 Make "Fedora" a developer's tool, with a set of distros meeting each of the subgroup's needs 19:12:58 rdieter, fedora's strength is that is is a bazaar and a bucket of parts. fedora's weakness is that nobody outside of fedora wants that or cares about it 19:13:08 how is that a weakness? 19:13:11 do we need people to want us? 19:13:24 rbergeron: much to my dismay we do. 19:13:32 Where by subgroups I mean the three groups mizmo mentioned before 19:13:32 * nirik for one doesn't want a narrow vision, but if fedora does, perhaps bite the bullet and folks not under that vision can look elsewhere for what they want. (which would be very sad, IMHO) 19:13:33 * mmcgrath argued that point a while back but ultimately decided I was wrong 19:13:36 mizmo: Which, translated into Fedora would mean... We have a Fedora that's like Debian, perhaps we need to build an Ubuntu on top of that. 19:13:37 rbergeron, my goal in life is to make computers more useful for people via free software. if we don't care if people outside of fedora care about fedora, i quit 19:13:50 rbergeron, becausei obviously cannot achieve my personal goals with fedora in that case 19:13:50 nirik: what if that narrow vision was "fedora core as a platform" 19:13:56 and i dont like wasting my life 19:13:58 for other releases. 19:14:26 mmcgrath: I'm not sure what that means, so not sure what I would say... ;) 19:14:54 * jsmith joins the discussion late 19:15:00 inode0: :) 19:15:01 abadger1999: thats an interesting thought... 19:15:03 abadger1999, maybe 19:15:04 so we cater to people outside the distro before we cater to our own? 19:15:09 abadger1999, mccann is proposing 'GNOME OS' 19:15:24 I think we need to realize that Fedora is more than the sum of its parts 19:15:25 nirik: basically treat Fedora itself as a series of packages and have varying SIG-based distros atop that (similar to what Ubuntu does with Debian as a platform) 19:15:33 nirik: eh, I just thought it through to its natural conclusion and decided it was a crappy idea. 19:15:45 sgallagh: yeah, so xfedora, lfedora, gnofedora ? ;) 19:15:53 mizmo: I heard that and I kinda like that if we can figure out how to do the Fedora is upstream of your distro better than Ubuntu/dDebian (or OLPC-Fedora :-( 19:16:04 nirik: I was thinking about making crit path packages and stripping it down even further. To some core "linux" thing. That stayed stable but generally new. Then the sigs build upon that in their own silos. 19:16:06 Well, you wink, but I'm not sure that's a bad idea 19:16:29 mmcgrath: isn't that effectively the current state? 19:16:51 No, not really 19:16:52 walters: No, the current state is that we have a single silo from which you pull everything 19:16:59 * nirik goes to get coffee/lunch before the fesco meeting in 15min. 19:17:11 There's a little bit of this idea in the livecd spins 19:17:21 abadger1999, we certainly put a lot of effort into making it easy to make things with fedora 19:17:23 But I think we're talking about treating the different spins as projects in their own right 19:17:39 nirik: Thanks nirik -- I'll need to bug you about the goals and operations idea later. 19:17:40 And bringing Fedora itself into more of a developer's playground. 19:17:43 walters: no, we don't have the silos. We have everyone stepping on eachothers toes trying to make one product with several conflicting goals. 19:17:46 to walters point how is it different htan spins 19:18:20 I like the idea of spins where someone can try my thing out, but I hate them in that they are a weird and different way to install, and add complexity and choices. 19:18:20 at least it now clearly defines what feodra is 19:18:31 abadger1999: anytime. 19:18:35 it is the upstream from which products/spins flow 19:18:37 * nirik goes for a bit... 19:19:42 mizmo: you're saying mccann is proposing gnome-os as the 'goal' of fedora? 19:20:20 skvidal: kudos for not letting that one slip by. ha. 19:20:27 ? 19:20:27 I think he's proposing, a gnome-os distribution, based on fedora. 19:20:30 skvidal, i am guessing it will have nothing to do with fedora 19:20:43 mizmo: okay - then I think I missed some context 19:20:45 Oh, well maybe with no fedora in it :-( 19:20:53 what was that apropos of? 19:21:11 hmm 19:21:12 In general, I'm wary of going down the "Fedora is just a set of repos" path 19:21:13 or rather 19:21:16 of what was that apropos 19:21:25 has anyone asked the people paying for fedora whether they're happy and/or what they would change? 19:21:39 skvidal, well we were talking about distros being a downstream of another distro and my guess is gnome os will be a downstream of some distro (not sure which one) - just trying to point out that it's a solution others are looking at too 19:21:39 jsmith: if we went the google route and did everything via the web, we'd even have windows users as Fedora users :) 19:22:03 walters: whom would you ask? 19:22:14 mmcgrath: Is the cure worse than the disease? 19:22:25 walters: b/c I think you'll get a different answer based on which portion of the org-chart you talk to 19:22:32 do you mean the volunteers paying for it with their time? 19:22:34 walters, fedora is for fedora contributors 19:22:42 so i guess that is who youwould ask skvidal 19:22:42 skvidal: maybe, in any case it'd be data 19:22:52 walters: data? 19:22:54 mizmo: i don't think that's agreed on 19:22:59 skvidal: ask all of them 19:22:59 walters, i think that's the status quo though 19:23:04 walters, not something i'm really thrilled about 19:23:12 or some of them, ordered by how much money/time/people/whatever 19:23:20 jsmith: naw, it's just the future is all :) Fedora itself will never make headway on devices, pads, phones, etc. But if we had a strong web presence (like google apps but free) then we'd be positioned to be eveywhere. 19:23:35 inode0, im not a volunteer anymore. does that mean fedora isn't for me? 19:23:37 walters: Outside of Red Hat, I don't think very many people are paid to work on *Fedora* 19:23:38 mizmo: honestly? I'd ask spot what pain he gets above him about what fedora is doing and what things he's being pushed to do 19:23:49 I think people are paid to work on upstream projects 19:24:01 mizmo: nope, I just want to know who walters is talking about when he suggests asking those paying for it 19:24:04 And we want to build an environment that encourages them to do that THROUGH Fedora 19:24:13 inode0: like the money for fudcons 19:24:26 mizmo: b/c there's no good way to ask 'volunteers' really. 19:24:35 skvidal, i think the answer would be, 'boy would it be nice to have the mindshare we used to have' 19:24:37 mizmo: and zero way to ask users 19:24:37 mmcgrath: Right... but is being everywhere really our end game? Are our developers/contributors passionate about building web-apps? 19:24:41 mizmo: used to have? 19:24:46 mizmo: you mean like with rhl? 19:24:49 skvidal, red hat linux days yep 19:25:07 walters: So the way I understand it, that would be asking RH management what they get from Fedora. 19:25:11 more mindshare = more people using fedora as a development platform = more apps for fedora users = a better distro 19:25:13 jsmith: I think our current end game won't matter by the time we get there, we're about to get steamrolled in the next 5 years or so by companies like google. 19:25:13 mmcgrath: Personally, I'm fine if Fedora never makes headway on cell phones or music players. That's not where we're concentrating our efforts. 19:25:23 mizmo: I think I've made pitches for that case before - but that tack is fraught with monsters 19:25:26 Which, hopefully, we've been doing a good job of telling them for 6 years :-) 19:25:31 abadger1999: yes, or well not what they get, but how happy they are 19:25:36 jsmith: we're concentrating? 19:25:48 jsmith: where are we concentrating? 19:25:48 skvidal, which monsters? 19:26:09 are they susceptible to my zony laser? 19:26:17 skvidal: Wouldn't you say we're concentrating on x86-compatible machines? 19:26:19 mizmo: rhel-ish monsters, I suspect. 19:26:25 jsmith: that's not much of a focus 19:26:40 jsmith: that's like saying "we're targeting 'people'" 19:26:58 mizmo: b/c a big sell of rhl was the 3yrs of support/security for free :) 19:27:02 skvidal, targeting people works in grand theft auto 19:27:07 abadger1999: they might have said, but at least i personally have no idea really... 19:27:17 skvidal: Well, that was in response to mmcgrath saying we weren't making headway on "devices, pads, phones, etc." 19:27:31 walters: Okay -- what does asking them if they're happy with what Fedora provides them give us? 19:27:41 * abadger1999 trying to make a # idea out of this. 19:27:44 skvidal, i think support/security for 1 year on the desktop is agreeable 19:27:50 abadger1999: i dunno; just data at first, maybe we can use that data for something 19:27:50 skvidal, there are ways to make that more palatable for users 19:27:53 jsmith: okay - well I have a laptop and a I have a server and i suspect that there are a lot of people who would suggest tht those two do not have the same requirements 19:27:57 (there must be ways) i should say 19:27:58 targeting people is sort of taken already I think 19:27:59 i don't know, but if someone wants to finish packaging limesurvey for me I'd be happy to ask lots of questions ;DDDDD 19:28:10 mizmo: I suspect it is not - not when the 1yr is full of giant breakages and holes 19:28:31 skvidal: I see your point. And my server probably doesn't have the same requirements as your server, either... 19:28:44 mizmo: and further - that takes us back where we were 19:28:56 if we cannot tell packagers: "YOU CANNOT PUSH THAT TO THE STABLE RELEASE" 19:29:03 then we cannot stabilize the releases 19:29:15 otherwise we get kde doom and firefox doom and whatever else 19:30:00 mizmo: so as I see it 19:30:03 you want mindshare back 19:30:24 1. stabilize/QA before a release - yay we can do that now 19:30:40 mmcgrath: That's not to say we can't or shouldn't find other niches that need filling -- I just don't know if it makes sense to change our entire focus to building web apps 19:30:44 2. make a stable release TRULY stable - no intentional backports-of-doom 19:30:56 3. increase the support lifetime 19:31:12 jsmith: I agree with mmcgrath fwiw 19:31:14 * mmcgrath doesn't think "cloud" or web based computing is a niche 19:31:25 skvidal: 1 and 2 make sense. I don't think 3 is really possible. 19:31:25 html5 is going to completely change the game. 19:31:28 jsmith: the desktop doesn't matter much anymore - people are using the desktop to access online resources 19:31:38 skvidal: and you think if you were stuck in an elevator with an ubuntu enthusiast, that'd be enough for you to sell him or her on fedora? 19:31:39 Most of Fedora's developers find sustaining boring. 19:31:42 skvidal, but instead of #3 increase support life time, can you instead do - make it way easier to upgrade when it's time? 19:31:55 walters: I don't think a gun could sell an ubuntu enthusiast on fedora 19:32:03 walters: but thatr has NOTHING to do with it being a good or bad idea 19:32:03 * mmcgrath doesn't currently have a single resource open that is accessing local data except for the local time :) 19:32:09 mizmo: The problem with that is that not every upstream writes an upgrade script for their tool 19:32:10 skvidal, actually ive converted at least a couple over identi.ca 19:32:18 mizmo: from ubuntu? 19:32:19 skvidal: oh agreed, i'm not saying it's a bad idea 19:32:21 skvidal, yep 19:32:25 mizmo: hold on 19:32:29 I've got email, irc, web, chat, streaming radio and a couple of remote virt-manager connections :) 19:32:29 you converted people from ubuntu 19:32:29 So we're talking about requiring every package maintainer to test dist-upgrade on each of their packages 19:32:32 to identi.ca? 19:32:39 * skvidal tries to understand that conversion process 19:32:39