21:01:35 #startmeeting 21:01:35 Meeting started Tue Sep 14 21:01:35 2010 UTC. The chair is mizmo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:01:35 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 21:01:37 woo 21:01:41 jere 21:01:43 how do i chair peeps? 21:01:46 #chair jsmith 21:01:46 Current chairs: jsmith mizmo 21:01:48 #chair peeps 21:01:50 oh that was easy 21:01:55 Don't forget #meetingname 21:02:08 #meetingname Fedora 20 Visioneering 21:02:08 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_20_visioneering' 21:03:05 okay 21:03:12 i haven't seen jcm around 21:03:15 unfortunately 21:03:40 * mizmo looks for latest version of vision statement 21:04:07 this is the lateston the mailing list The Fedora Project envisions a widely-adopted and thriving free & open 21:04:08 source software ecosystem improving users' lives worldwide. 21:04:17 * brunowolff is here 21:04:18 but i think we had improvement on that in a recent board meeting... 21:04:20 * mizmo looks it up 21:04:24 oh glad you could make it brunowolff ! 21:06:08 hum im not finding it 21:06:53 well anyway 21:07:06 so we're looking to develop a vision statement and 3 mini-goals to get there over the next few releases 21:07:15 the vision statement should kind of say what we want fedora to be say by fedora 20 21:07:26 does anyone have any ideas they'd like to bring ot the table? 21:08:00 I'd like to see Fedora usable by normal people while still only using free software. 21:08:20 I have a few things I'll bring up, after other folks have a chance to speak up 21:08:27 * jsmith is trying to juggle two meetings at once 21:08:54 I'd also like to see it have great applications, especially games. 21:09:29 mmcgrath suggested on-list specifically focusing on great web applicatoins 21:09:40 "IMO, I think the only answer is rich, integrated online apps. Those iPhone users, android users, etc. I don't know why they couldn't also be Fedora users." 21:10:15 * jonmasters feels that is a bad idea 21:10:40 jonmasters, let me just rewind a bit make sure you see brunowolff's comments: 21:10:44 I'd like to see Fedora usable by normal people while still only using free software. 21:10:48 I'd also like to see it have great applications, especially games. 21:11:00 jonmasters, do you think web specifically is a bad idea? 21:11:28 mizmo: I think the implication there was that Fedora should be providing online apps 21:11:40 that I feel is a disaster waiting to happen 21:11:46 jonmasters: I think Fedora should be providing a platform to provide online apps. 21:12:12 jonmasters, i mean, if fedora's purpose is to spread floss, are we doing that if we are just providing a browser to google apps? :( 21:12:24 mmcgrath: I agree that FOSS web-apps are important, but I have some concerns 21:12:32 mmcgrath: that is different :) but your original comment spoke about e.g. Android users "using Fedora". 21:12:36 jsmith: like the complete re-architecture of everything we do :) 21:12:43 * rbergeron would like to see fedora be *the* place with the solid development toolchain to develop both online apps / cloud apps, as well as the place for backend cloud developers to focus on developing the toolsets that tie all those servers together. 21:12:46 mmcgrath: 1) Does it make sense to do that in parallel to Fedora, or instead of what we're doing now? 21:12:51 jonmasters: they can, or they could use those apps at there enterprise if they want. 21:12:56 jsmith: instead of. 21:13:02 And see that anything and everything needed for those developers is in place to do development on either side there. 21:13:14 what we're doing now doesn't work, and doing more of it is just going to not work more. 21:13:16 As well as be a place of excellence to bring people from multiple companies, etc. together to focus on those goals. 21:13:16 mmcgrath: 2) Do we have the resources/interest/momentum to make that change? 21:13:24 not without $$ 21:13:30 I don't think volunteers will be able to do this. 21:13:38 just like volunteers weren't able to do android. 21:13:44 mmcgrath: specifically. Are you saying 1). or 2). of the following: 21:14:03 mmcgrath: Then I suggest that Fedora continues on with what it's doing, and you try to find funding for web development in parallel to Fedora 21:14:07 1). That you want Fedora to *provide* web apps, or an online platform to *host* apps, then the software becomes a thin client to those apps. 21:14:32 2). That you want Fedora to focus on providing an environment that targets users who will be using online apps from others. 21:15:03 mmcgrath: which of those are you suggesting? 21:15:26 1) 21:15:34 but fedora isn't hosting them right 21:15:35 but 1) in such a way that $other-company can yum install that stuff 21:15:38 fedora is just the platform 21:15:43 fedora would host them for our own stuff and own develoerps 21:15:49 but we wouldn't be some public site for any and all 21:15:52 you can host them anywhere, just use fedora as the platform 21:15:53 yeh 21:16:07 woah, that's way off from where I thought we'd be focusing :) 21:16:20 we've got pretty much all the same needs of most companies. we would certainly be proving ground / eating our own dog food. 21:17:11 there is one issue though. Most webapp 'platform' development has lifetiems of weeks per major release versus 6 months 21:17:13 so this vision is someone wanting to build the next flickr or vimeo or whatever, trying to figure out a platform to use, would pick fedora, and would be able to develop their app using ROR, TG, Java, whatever, then deploy it to the cloud or deploy to physical servers or whatever 21:17:22 if we think KDE moves fast.. 21:17:52 * jonmasters feels that Google, Microsoft, heck even Palm (HP) are sewing up the market for providing web apps. It seems like a lot of (unresourced) effort to take on that and lose sight of providing a usable server/desktop system. 21:18:01 smooge: it would be that way at first, but not as a long term goal. 21:18:19 jonmasters, theres a lot of popular webapps out there that aren't google* though 21:18:21 The way I see it, people are using the web primarily to consume content 21:18:24 launching all the time 21:18:32 (Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, etc.) 21:18:47 mmcgrath, don't we become plumbing then? 21:19:02 I'm not sure Fedora has the type of content users would spend time consuming in that world view 21:19:04 I'm not trying to overly crap on mmcgrath's idea. I just don't think there are any resources, and it's so out of whack with Fedora's traditional focus...doesn't seem viable. 21:19:05 mmcgrath, or are we a desktop env for those webdevs as well? 21:19:06 mizmo, plumbing is a very useful though unloved industry 21:19:33 mizmo: not just plumbing 21:19:38 someone's got to design that rich html5 experience. 21:19:49 mmcgrath: yes, someone has 21:20:11 jonmasters, the issue I see is that the traditional market Fedora has been aimed at is dieing faster than a asthmatic in a chlorine leak 21:20:12 mmcgrath, but it'll be goldenpoo.com or whatever branded, why would they give a heads up to fedora? 21:20:19 er, shout out 21:20:39 OK... we're 20 minutes in -- I don't mean to cut mmcgrath short, but I'd like to leave time for other ideas as well. 21:20:40 smooge, devs need a desktop too though, right? 21:20:46 smooge: that's only because we refuse to admit that both Ubuntu and OpenSuSE have some sense when it comes to providing a stable platform that doesn't break every ten minutes with "updates". 21:21:00 Assuming that Fedora decides to continue building a distribution, what would we like to see in version 20 of said distribution? 21:21:01 yeah but beyond emacs/eclipse what else do they need? 21:21:08 jonmasters: but only to less then 1% of users... which has been the case for 10 years. I don't think that's fixable. 21:21:16 jsmith, we're still a distro in mmcgrath's suggestion tho 21:21:32 one that aligns well with cloud stuff :) 21:21:47 the ultimate free cloud development and deployment OS? 21:21:49 * jsmith thought he said abandon the distro to focus on web apps 21:22:03 I am mostly saying abandon what our current distro is 21:22:04 jsmith, no, distro == platform for webapps, rather than distro == desktop (today) 21:22:07 jsmith: I want a stable, useful distribution. I've been speaking with Mo (who knows my girlfriend) about how my girlfriend is the SXSW example user in mizmo's blog post. But she can't use Fedora right now. Something is always broken, updates break randomly, it's a mess. 21:22:09 mizmo, cloudpoo would give us no more of a shout out than they would RH or Ubuntu. 21:22:14 (That's how i read it anyway) 21:23:11 yep, she is tech-savvy, does video editing and multimedia stuff right? but fedora is a no-go 21:23:11 jonmasters, I understand.. I have seen it over and over. I don't think the venn diagram of developers and developers girlfriends cross very much on the computer 21:23:30 not that they aren't tech-savvy but they have different expectations 21:23:30 mizmo: indeed 21:23:38 smooge, maybe not developer's girl (and boy)friends, but how about nonprofits and kids? 21:23:52 mizmo: her Mac "just works". Which it does. Heck, I use a Mac at home a lot now because I'm sick and tired of the update mess. 21:23:54 where it's either a free os + apps or no os & apps 21:24:16 mizmo, neither there. Developers are ADHD kids who want things latest or they go somewhere else really quickly 21:24:25 the community center i'm working at now gets corporately donated machines totally wiped of an os because they keep the MS licenses 21:24:32 when the Mac says there's an update, it just works. It lets me install or not, doesn't crash, everything works as before. It's not rocket science. 21:24:40 the amount of "Oh Fedora is broke" is about the same as "Oh why doesn't Fedora ship X new" from the same people 21:24:49 smooge, we have to pick one 21:24:59 mizmo: indeed, pick *one* 21:25:01 there's four audience that have come up here 21:25:37 (1) devs, gimme gimme more, gimme more (2) SXSW attendees who want things to be reliable (3) non-profits / community centers / kids (4) web developers (who may intersect a lot with SXSW-ers) 21:25:46 mizmo, so we can pick "we want developers" or we can pick "we want stable" 21:25:50 it might well be that I need to install $some_other_distro at home in order to get a stable development platform, and then I run Fedora in a VM. Ok. Fine. But right now there is no plan. 21:25:53 jonmasters: It's easy to control the upgrade experience when you have complete control of both the OS and hardware, and lots of market capitalization 21:25:56 but i dont even think within our Linux geek community right now, everyone is all about gimme more, gimme latest 21:25:59 i think it may be a loud minority 21:26:13 because having seen this in other linux distros over OMG 15 years.. once you go stable.. most of the devs go away 21:26:16 jonmasters: It's a much harder thing to control with volunteers, random hardware, etc. 21:26:48 jsmith: I agree. But it's too easy to use that to say "so let's not bother" (which I know you're not). We could actually require less churn, have higher barriers, etc. 21:27:15 jsmith: since Fedora doesn't have the same resources, IMHO it's even more the reason not to push huge changes in stable releases. 21:27:27 jonmasters: We could. There's obviously a balance to be found there 21:27:27 but I'm speaking too much, I'll shutup for a second. 21:28:06 honestly, i could live with fedora being a nice development platform and potentially desktop for web devs 21:28:06 I'd like to see us get more resources. Recruiting more contributors by F20 would be a good goal. 21:28:12 prefer that to not having a focus at all 21:28:15 brunowolff+++ 21:28:37 The issue historically is that volunteer distros start off with a lot of Go for the latest, and at some point they seem to go "we want stable". About the only one that has succeeded in surving that has been Debian 21:28:55 I think our focus shouldn't be more contriburtors, but higher quality contributors 21:28:58 and they seem to have had a lion share lock on people who like that kind of stability AND will work to keep it 21:29:01 mmcgrath++ 21:29:10 mizmo: I think the people crying out for the latest version of something released yesterday are blinded by the light coming in through the windows of the ivory tower, far from the real world :) 21:29:34 having a few high-quality contributors can get more done that many times the number but low-commitment / lesser skills i think 21:29:36 jonmasters, I am not going to disagree with you on that. But currently they are the ones we know about here 21:29:52 While higher quality would be nice, we are also short people of medium quality. 21:29:58 yep 21:30:12 smooge: also, what's so wrong with enforcing compatibility by requiring things work with, oh, 6 month old software? I'll tell you: NONE. There's no problem, and lot of good things. 21:30:17 but mmcgrath is right to point out total number isn't as important i think as the quality distrbution within whatever the number may be 21:30:27 well lets not start going into a "How good are our devels" We are short of people who are high, middle and even low quality. 21:30:35 smooge, s/devels/contributors 21:30:41 I think that may be dependent on what we call contributors. 21:31:16 smooge, you give me 10 high-maintenance maintainers, and i may not get my job done anymore and they may not be able to have a good experience and produce useful things 21:31:16 If a person is able to do solid work that other people don't have to redo later, that is work that frees up people cable of doing 21:31:23 amazing things to do those. 21:31:29 jonmasters, I am just going to point out that every time a fast paced distro has done that .. it has lost most of the people who drove the OS. I ahve seen Mandrake go through that. Gentoo go through that, and a ton of other distors go through that 21:31:31 smooge, give me 2 or 3 motivated folks who have a little experience, that's totally different 21:31:47 smooge: and yet Ubuntu is doing remarkably well 21:31:52 the investment in folks like that is worth it 21:32:12 hmm 21:32:15 jonmasters, A) a lot of heavy lifting done at Ubuntu is paid for by Shuttleworth 21:32:18 step 1. find zillionaire 21:32:20 step 2. ? 21:32:26 step 3. world domination 21:32:36 B) they aren't as fast edged as we are and never have been 21:32:41 * jonmasters would rather see Fedora be "a better Ubuntu" than what it is now, if it's a choice between that and the Laissez-faire nonsense going on now. 21:32:52 right 21:32:56 any plan is better than no plan 21:33:07 C) Their upstream is a lot larger than we are and have been doing it for 10+ years longer than we have 21:33:25 debian is 10 years older than red hat? 21:33:35 debian is 10 years older than Fedora. 21:33:40 D). They have a very consistent set of plans and goals documented on their wiki 21:33:40 * mmcgrath should also make it clear. He has a more radical plan for Fedora. But generally agrees with jonmasters 21:33:46 red hat linux is in fedora's lineage and should be counted 21:34:05 Red Hat is 3 years younger than Debian but did not have as large an ecosystem to worry about as Fedora does 21:34:18 but can we serve jonmasters' users with the awesome web apps our devs produce rather than fedora directly? 21:34:21 is that just as good? 21:34:25 mizmo, there is a VAST difference between 10 developers and 400 developers 21:34:47 if jonmasters' girlfriend can go to a website and do awesome stuff via a server running fedora on her mac, are we doing better than her going to adobe-poopoo.com or flash-mania.com? 21:35:12 i mean 21:35:13 mizmo, RH dealt with 500 SRPMS and we deal with 9000 21:35:15 i think that's an improvement 21:35:21 The fundamental difference is that Ubuntu has a plan. Their update philosophy I happen to like, but it is also *well* documented and enforced. 21:35:42 well we can come up with a plan when we know where we want to go 21:35:47 their plan is to be a better windows 21:35:58 jonmasters, they also have attracted all the people who like that kind of thing.. we didn't. going to doing it won't all of a sudden get us people to fill in for the ones we lose. 21:35:59 if you think about it, that's kind of not a very forward-thinking plan 21:36:14 "hmm i want to be the hot OS of the 1990s, woo" 21:36:16 I am not saying we shouldn't go there. but realize the cost before you jump in 21:36:47 so i mean 21:36:50 mizmo, but you just said any plan is better than no plan :P 21:37:00 smooge, right, and their success is evidence of that 21:37:17 smooge: every time I pick up a magazine with Fedora on the cover that perpetuates the notion that we are catering to that crowd, I am also sad. Like I am by the great marketing and even the work Mo has done with schools. That is not the audience today and it should be. They're all going to Ubuntu because we're allowing it to happen. 21:37:18 i can go through my kitchen cabinets and throw everything in there and my fridge together and pray a nice meal will come out 21:37:24 but it's better to try to follow a recipe of some sort. 21:37:33 even if i screw up the recipe... chances are better than dump and go 21:38:01 anyway, how about the biggest goal by F20 is that we have a set of plans? 21:38:04 "bleeding edge" in the magazine 21:38:10 jonmasters, our due date is sep 27 :) 21:38:15 * mizmo puts her foot down 21:38:15 Let's make sure by F-20 there is a plan for F-25 21:38:26 sep 27, 2010 i will add 21:39:05 1) if we think about mmcgrath's suggestion, katherine is gonna be using some nice web applications to do interesting things. web apps that are running on fedora. but perhaps she's using OS X for the web browser. good? bad? 21:39:49 mizmo: on some level it doesn't matter. On another level, I think it's a very sad day when we don't offer end users anything they can run on their computer any more. 21:40:02 jonmasters, well 21:40:24 * jsmith is not convinced that Linux on the desktop is a losing proposition... if it were, I wouldn't have taken the job as the FPL 21:40:38 2) if we think about mmcgrath's suggestion, we could have sxsw-y folks (more devs than designers) using fedora to write those apps... running virt-manager to test 'em, using our devel tools and framework packages to build 'em 21:40:41 jsmith: I think it's lost already. 21:40:46 so we're still a desktop, just a *specialized* desktop 21:40:52 nobody is going to write a web app on a cell phone, i'm sorry 21:40:53 or an ipad 21:40:57 those are consumption devices 21:41:17 Part of this is that on the desktop we've been trying to compete on freedom. 21:41:22 i can't even really write a comprehensible email to my mom on my android 21:41:25 and we can't win that war. Not enough people care. 21:41:27 nevermind write code 21:41:28 mmcgrath: I know you do. And that's where we're going to politely agree to disagree :-) 21:41:41 if we compete on quality, features, usability, that's how we spread freedom. 21:41:46 jsmith: my biggest boggle is that we have all of this fancy desktop gloss. I mean, you plug in an Android phone and a picture of that specific phone is the mount icon on the desktop. That's *very* end user. It's not developer. We say one thing, do another, or vice versa... 21:41:49 but simply producing free stuff isn't enough. 21:41:55 jsmith, we won't just be competing on freedom though. we'll be competing for people who might not even want a desktop or laptop anymore 21:42:02 free os or not 21:42:05 and I don't think we have nearly the right type of people in the numbers we'd need them to compete with the currnet state of OSX. 21:42:32 mmcgrath, actually we do. We repackage what Ubuntu does 21:42:34 jonmasters: I'm not convinced that it's an either/or proposition either. I don't see why there can't be a *huge amount* of overlap between the desktop user, the power user/media creator, and the server-oriented user 21:42:47 what about die hard Linux users of old? Most of my friends are switching to Ubuntu. And why is that? I know why. 21:42:49 jsmith: I think it's a transition. 21:42:58 mmcgrath: No, I think it's *overlap* 21:43:20 do you think the desktop as we know it today will be just as important, more important, or less important in 5 years? 21:43:27 jsmith: either a computer is a real machine or it's pointy-clickyitis :) 21:43:28 I think that 80% (roughly) of what a desktop user needs overlaps with what a media creation user needs. 21:43:36 jsmith: (joke) 21:43:48 jsmith, there can be overlap, but you have to focus on one 21:43:56 Sure... 21:44:03 So, mind if I share a bit of what my vision is? 21:44:09 please do 21:44:11 +1 21:44:17 Ok, so here's my world view: 21:44:41 NO YOU ARE WRONG! 21:44:44 * mmcgrath keeding :) 21:44:51 1) We need to have focus, but that doesn't mean we focus on that target audience to the point that we forget where we've been, or who we are 21:45:27 We need to be honest about the fact that we've set a target audience, but that we also serve as the base for a server-class enterprise distribution 21:45:45 Obviously those two things pull in different directions, and there's going to be friction at times 21:46:00 but there's a *huge* amount of overlap between the two 21:46:34 If we go too far towards the "desktop user" side, we stop being valuable to our primary corporate sponsor 21:46:58 If we go to ofar towards the "server LTS" side, we start competing with our primary corporate sponsor 21:47:06 So there's a balance to be had 21:47:15 no 21:47:23 RH doesn't offer anything comparable to LTS, sorry 21:47:43 mizmo is right, sortof 21:47:44 I'm using "LTS" to mean "long term support", not anything else 21:47:55 okay 21:48:02 7+ years support, sure 21:48:04 Didn't mean to confuse anybody :-) 21:48:08 i dont think there is any danger of fedora going there 21:48:09 :) 21:48:25 There are certainly people within our community and leadership that would like us to 21:48:25 Red Hat sells subscriptions, users want to stay on the oldest and most conservative versions. So doing a 2 year "LTS" Fedora would be fine, and indeed useful for RHEL anyway. 21:48:26 (thought it was a reference to another-distro LTS) :( 21:48:39 mizmo: absolutely not :-) 21:48:48 theres people in fedora leadership who want fedora to be 7+ years support? 21:48:58 people pay Red Hat for a throat to choke, lots of other things that Fedora isn't providing anyway. 21:49:00 or just a 2 year 21:49:07 mizmo: Maybe not seven, but at least three or four, yes 21:49:17 3 or 4? wow 21:49:18 I'd like to see 2 years 21:49:22 wonders who these ppl in fedora leadership are 21:49:44 2 years seems like the sweet spot 21:49:47 2) We need to do a better job of helping people who are new to Fedora stick with Fedora 21:50:01 Right now we give them a LiveCD, say "pop this in your machine, and you'll be set" 21:50:14 if they are lucky 21:50:14 Right now, I buy new hard disks once or twice a year. I do a fresh install since I can't trust the upgrade, then reconfigure and don't pull in most updates. It lets me limp by. It's far from ideal. 21:50:15 most get an iso 21:50:23 :( 21:50:40 People try it, and at the first sign of trouble ("I don't know what program to use to do desktop publishing"), they throw their hands in the air 21:50:52 If updates were less breakage-tastic, and if releases could be trusted for 2 years, it would change a lot. 21:51:06 but if we want people to be able to do desktop publishing in fedora, we are really screwed up right now, our priorities are nowhere near that 21:51:19 jsmith: the *number one* way to help people stick with Fedora is to not break their systems. 21:51:26 So as hard as it is to remember what it was like to be new at Linux, we all need to step back and help make it a good experience 21:51:31 jsmith: *number one* 21:51:41 i also think regressions are a major killer 21:52:04 updates & selinux alerts are the first things that spook people 21:52:07 I seriously can't trust that an update isn't going to hose something, so I basically never update. And I do know how to fix it. 21:52:35 jsmith, so i dont think what you said is really a vision.... 21:52:36 I just don't care any more about fixing breakage. After 15 years using Linux, I expect certain things to "just work" by now. 21:52:41 OK, updates and SELinux alerts aside... 21:52:44 it's more a list of risks 21:52:55 suggestion: set a target audience and kill the current stuff on the wiki. It's very mission statementy (things companies write in order to avoid being specific). Be *very* specific about target users, not in general hand-wavy terms. 21:53:26 The current stuff has got to go. It's got to say "this is *EXACTLY* who we are targeting". 21:53:52 then the vision can be build around the exact target audience 21:54:01 it cant be P.C. 21:54:37 otherwise everything is read in the context of somehow applying to the target audience (more like missread) 21:55:08 * jsmith will be right back -- someone at the door 21:55:11 mizmo: I'm not proposing a "No Homers Allowed" rule though ;) 21:55:32 (simpsons joke) 21:55:38 hehe 21:56:06 hmm 21:56:20 i mean if we are here 21:56:44 | stable server thingy |============================(somewhere here)=========================|| zomg desktop for os x users || 21:56:57 doesn't a developer-oriented desktop sit there? 21:57:03 especially for a web dev 21:57:17 who is gonna have to run some services and server-oriented packages to get his test sites working? 21:57:21 It does in my mind 21:57:30 Shoot -- I'll be honest 21:57:39 the thing is 21:57:40 I've done web development (small-scale stuff) for over ten years now 21:57:44 the develop can't be "a fedora developer" 21:57:53 And I use Fedora to do my development 21:57:58 it has to be a "normal human being developer who doesn't have any lunix flavor tattooed on his or her heart" 21:58:00 Am I normal? Who am I to judge? 21:58:26 it can be annoying as a web development platform though 21:58:33 Sure... so can OS X 21:58:36 So can Windows 21:58:39 So can FreeBSD 21:58:40 but we can make it much better 21:58:42 I don't mind if we're the Indie cool-coffeeshop hacker OS of choice 21:58:54 jonmasters, hehe i had a little comic strip towards that 21:58:58 :) 21:58:58 mizmo: my idea covers that whole span :) develop server side stable things on the left, that are designed to be used by those on the right. 21:59:37 mmcgrath: Couldn't your web apps run just as well on RHEL, and need fewer upgrades over the long haul? 21:59:38 jonmasters, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Personas/CoffeeShop 21:59:40 I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being *the* de-facto developer platform of choice for anything future-iffic. 21:59:50 All I care about at all is that I used to care about fixing stuff and reconfiguring, and setting wallpapers and themes and blah blah blah. Now I just want a computer I can take for granted will work. A Mac does that. Heck, even Windows /might/ do that. Fedora *stable* does not do that. 21:59:55 jsmith: they do, but they have to be created first and RHEL doesn't seem like the right spot for creation. 22:00:08 jonmasters, fedora stable isn't stable enough for most webdevs i think 22:00:15 rbergeron: Neither do I -- I'm just not sure we want to change our focus from desktop users to developers 22:00:24 mizmo: Fedora stable isn't "stable". That's a joke. 22:00:34 :) 22:00:42 yep 22:00:50 are we sure that our existing consumer base isn't primarily developers anyhow? 22:00:59 jsmith, developer deskto 22:01:00 I think the word "stable" is overloaded, and has too many different meanings 22:01:08 it's not changing our focus. we would need a focus in the first place to change 22:01:14 and if you're doing TG development, you're running the set of TG tools they give you, so you're not running distro versions anyway. So who cares if the distro tools are 6 months old? 22:01:19 it was 22:01:24 mizmo: We have a target audience. Isn't that our focus? 22:01:38 rbergeron, it was for a long time, youd see gnome devs for example using suse and fedora. now many that used to use fedora use ubuntu 22:01:41 jsmith, no it's not 22:01:44 mizmo: no web developer wants their web stack to change under them in an "update". 22:02:09 mizmo: What use is a target audience if that isn't our focus? 22:02:17 jsmith, most folks don't even take the target audience statement seriously or act on it right now 22:02:27 ok TIME. 22:02:28 yes, and other people I know who use Fedora for doing development for non-desktop things would rather strangle themselves than use ubuntu. 22:02:31 mizmo: I agree -- and there's nothing we can do to force them to 22:02:36 mizmo: they should be asked to leave 22:02:46 mizmo: They're volunteers. The only thing we can do is set a good example, and invite them to follow 22:02:56 jonmasters: I don't think so 22:03:01 jsmith: and ask them to go screw something else up in some cases 22:03:03 jsmith, even if people followed it a target audience isn't a focus 22:03:18 jsmith, my target audience can be the stated target audience but what are they doing with fedora? 22:03:22 I think we have shown why dealing with target audiences and visions is really hard... because as much as we sort of agree with each other we seem to be focusing on how we all differ. I am pretty much to blame on that 22:03:34 are they using it running on a server via a web app on a desktop or device that runs applefoo? 22:03:40 are they running it directly on hardware they own? 22:03:46 are they using it at home for multimedia? 22:03:52 are they using it at work for building websites? 22:04:13 it's like a guestlist without a party plan (which could be a wedding, a birthday party, or a superbowl sunday party) 22:04:52 i think a big problem is words like vision, target audience, focus, etc get treated as synonyms when they arnet 22:05:01 and i understand they are marketing-y words 22:05:11 OK, let me put it this way 22:05:30 suggestion: since we have differing opinions, do we need to have a real gathering to discuss this? Pick a FUDCon and make the *entire* focus be getting input on the project and setting its future? 22:05:35 Shouldn't our focus be to build the best possible experience for our target audience, and to move further towards our vision statement? 22:06:04 jonmasters: If we can't get ten people to agree on anything here in IRC, are we gonna get 200 to agree in person? 22:06:29 jsmith: nope, but we could get a representative sample, like a political convention. 22:06:33 my church is going through the same thing irght now 22:06:34 I think what we *can* agree on is that the current Fedora experience is suboptimal 22:06:43 they are having a series of 3 weekend strategic planning retreats 22:06:58 Besides shouldn't the board be leading here? Discussion is nice, but in the end someone needs to make a decision. 22:07:18 I think picking the target audience before picking a vision is sort of putting the cart before the horse, in some ways :) I think we would still be wise to figure out what we want to do, and then figure out a more narrowly-defined target audience that is the end goal, and the target audience along the way that helps get us there. 22:07:22 brunowolff: That's what we're doing 22:07:28 * jsmith has to run very shortly 22:07:41 jsmith, we can't just settle on best possible experience for our target audience, bc as notting and mmcgrath called out on the list, we're not sure what kind of experience they are going to want by f20 22:07:58 One with fewer bugs and less surprises, obviously :-) 22:08:00 "best" is very different across contexts 22:08:08 Sure... 22:08:18 rbergeron++ 22:08:21 * jonmasters wants to see jsmith, the Board, etc. empowered moreso than now. Yes, people are volunteers, but that doesn't mean that they can't be steered. 22:08:51 I trust jsmith to do the right thing, same for the other elected folks 22:09:04 I think we're focusing too much on the implementation details ("Fewer updates", "higher bar for updates to get pushed", "slower releases", "faster releases", "no releases at all!") rather than the experiences 22:09:08 but a stand has to be taken 22:09:15 not just write some fluff on a wiki page and forget about it 22:09:17 I've convinced that the server-desktop thing is one of the fundamental questions here. 22:09:19 a real decision has to be made 22:09:21 ("Updates from one version to the next should work", "updates shouldn't cause surprises") 22:09:23 mizmo: exactly 22:09:32 and acted upon 22:09:35 mizmo: a real, serious, very explicit decision must be made 22:09:47 mizmo: everyone should just listen to you :) 22:10:09 But it's not a boolean decision 22:11:00 It's not "server or desktop" 22:11:20 It's "where along the continuum between extreme desktop and extreme server do we want to focus" 22:11:21 it seems either desktop plumbing (a browser to watch youtube, which we can never do well bc of patents) 22:11:31 I think it would be good to see a few groups of people work on how a few different "scenarios" could play out, and define some similar things that should be addressed by each of those groups. ie: where are we now, what are the gaps that would need to be addressed to get us there, what would the milestones be, and how does that address the mission statements laid out (ie how does this get the world to FREEEEEEEEEEDOM) 22:11:32 or web plumbing (which i think we have a shot at succeeding at) 22:12:00 * jsmith has to run 22:12:04 Wish I could stick around longer 22:12:06 jsmith: I firmly believe we need both to serve our target audiences, including (a) geeks and (b) downstreams 22:12:08 let's do this again 22:12:16 propose a second meeting next week 22:12:29 sounds good 22:12:29 ctyler: I totally agree 22:12:35 mizmo: can you organize that? I think we might make progress given more time. 22:12:35 +1 to another meeting 22:12:39 jonmasters, yeppers ill do 22:12:50 it'll likely be later in the week next week 22:12:50 is having one of those "I understand why mizmo gets so frustrated with IRC/email conversations" 22:12:52 cuz of zurich 22:13:01 * mizmo gots to go too 22:13:03 #endmeeting