Meetings:Town Hall Board 2009-06-04 1400UTC

From FedoraProject

Revision as of 15:26, 4 June 2009 by Pfrields (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
stickster All right, time to get started 04 Jun 10:00
jwb BRING IT 04 Jun 10:00
stickster Good morning everyone, for anyone who doesn't know my nick, I'm Paul Frields and I'll be moderating this morning. I'll pick up your questions in #fedora-townhall-public, confirm them, and relay them to #fedora-townhall for the nominees to answer. This meeting will last approximately one hour. 04 Jun 10:00
stickster Before we get started, I'd like each of the nominees to write a one-line summary identifying themselves and giving any other relevant information. 04 Jun 10:01
stickster Take it away! 04 Jun 10:01
jwb Josh Boyer, looking forward to answering some good questions 04 Jun 10:01
ke4qqq Hi everyone, David Nalley here. Ask away! 04 Jun 10:02
spot Hi, my name is Tom "spot" Callaway, and I'm an alcoh...wait. 04 Jun 10:03
* stickster pokes dgilmore, mmcgrath 04 Jun 10:03
spot which meeting is this again? 04 Jun 10:03
stickster spot: The wrong one 04 Jun 10:03
spot oh. well, in that case, bring on the Fedora questions. ;) 04 Jun 10:03
--- ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) changed mode: +v mmcgrath 04 Jun 10:04
--- stickster (n=paul@fedora/stickster) changed mode: +v dgilmore 04 Jun 10:04
mmcgrath oops :) 04 Jun 10:04
mmcgrath I'm Mike McGrath, Fedora Infrastructure Lead. I'm running for the board. 04 Jun 10:04
stickster sorry 04 Jun 10:04
* stickster is awaiting questions from the other channel. Please hold. 04 Jun 10:05
dgilmore stickster: /me is here 04 Jun 10:05
stickster Good morning dgilmore! 04 Jun 10:05
stickster [0] From Southern_Gentlem: Why is each of the candidates running for the Board? 04 Jun 10:06
stickster (I'll number questions [0], [1], etc. so the nominees can refer to them specifically in their discussion as needed.) 04 Jun 10:07
dgilmore [0] im running to try and help the smaller parts of fedora gain more prominent voices and visability 04 Jun 10:07
spot [0] I'm running because I know that I can continue to make Fedora better and easier to be involved with. 04 Jun 10:07
ke4qqq [0] to win..... seriously though - I have a significant interest in the future of the Fedora project and want to help grow the project. 04 Jun 10:08
mmcgrath [0] I've been involved with Fedora for a while, and I've been involved in a number of board meetings. I many opinions about what should and shouldn't be happening with Fedora and would like to have my opinion heard. 04 Jun 10:08
jwb [0] i've been in FESCo for a long time now, and while that experience has been great from a technical point of view, i'd like to tackle some of the broader issues that fall into the Boards realm 04 Jun 10:08
stickster OK, anything else on that one? 04 Jun 10:09
stickster Next Q: 04 Jun 10:09
stickster [1] From mdomsch: The Board should have members with broad experience. Please describe some of your experiences and involvement outside of Fedora proper as you relate to other aspects of the greater open source community. 04 Jun 10:09
mmcgrath [1] I've interfaced with other groups as part of Fedora. OpenSuSE/Smolt immediately comes to mind. For me though I spend basically all of my Free Software time with Fedora. So everything I do beyond that is related to it via working with upstream, or coordinating a change. 04 Jun 10:11
spot [1] I've built my own Linux distribution (Aurora SPARC Linux), and have been involved in a number of open source community efforts including R, perl, and (to a small extent) the Linux kernel. 04 Jun 10:11
jwb [1] i'm an active member of the linux kernel community, maintaining the powerpc 4xx support, as well as other embedded and powerpc topics. i have also worked with a number of other upstreams on various issues, such as git, quilt, etc 04 Jun 10:11
dgilmore [1] while employed by olpc i had to work with many people from outside communities as well as people just learning to work with fedora. I also ported Fedora Extras to Aurora SPARC Linux 04 Jun 10:12
spot [1] I also spend a lot of time working with representatives from other Linux distributions to help define areas of common ground and minimize duplication of work. 04 Jun 10:12
ke4qqq [1] I've been involved with a few other projects prior or concurrently with Fedora, such as OpenGroupware.org where I helped with the documentation. I'm also one of the organizers of the Southeast Linuxfest (shameless plug - SELF is June 13th http://southeastlinuxfest.org) I have been a steering committee member of my local LUG. I am one of the people behind the Sugar Labs math4 push (though that's pretty tightly coupled with Fedora) I've been inv 04 Jun 10:12
jwb ke4qqq, you got cut off 04 Jun 10:13
stickster last bit was "I've been inv" 04 Jun 10:13
ke4qqq tnx: I've been involved in other geeky things as well such as various leadership roles within amateur radio groups at the local and state level. 04 Jun 10:13
stickster [2] From marth and pingou: How would you make decisions about what is important to Fedora, and what the Project should do in the future? 04 Jun 10:14
spot [2] That's a very broad question. I think that it is important to keep in mind that Fedora is a diverse community with a wide number of interests, and that it is important to try to strike a balance between these interests. 04 Jun 10:15
dgilmore [2] draw on personal experiences and beliefs to work out what is best for fedora going forward. each situation would be handled on its own merit and basis 04 Jun 10:15
spot [2] With that said, I do think that having vision and goals are important, and we need to recognize that in a way that doesn't preclude the community from working in different areas. 04 Jun 10:16
mmcgrath [2] Decisions I'd make for Fedora would be based around Fedora's values (openess, freedom) and feasibility. I don't like to assume I know what is best for a group so if something comes along that might affect, say, the docs team. You can be sure I'll be talking to them about it before blindly throwing a vote down. 04 Jun 10:16
mmcgrath err openness even :) 04 Jun 10:16
jwb [2] firstly, by referring back to our four freedoms and making sure it adheres to those as best it can. after that, trying to get a feel for where the fedora community is going and how we can help it 04 Jun 10:16
ke4qqq [2] I think Fedora already has a pretty decent statement of core values, marketed to the world as the Four F's. I'd make sure that our decisions further or at least don't infringe on those principles 04 Jun 10:16
spot [2] The core values obviously are key, I don't think any of us would think that they should be discarded for any reason. 04 Jun 10:17
stickster [3] from inode0: Once the process of "defining" Fedora is complete is there a danger that it will constrain Fedora in the future? 04 Jun 10:18
stickster (That's probably on a related note.) 04 Jun 10:18
dgilmore [2]what spot said 04 Jun 10:18
jwb [3] i don't think we should "define" it. i think we should "direct" it. you can change directions if you took a wrong turn. changing a definition is a lot harder 04 Jun 10:19
dgilmore [3] i dont think that defining fedora will ever be set in stone. its many different things to many differentpeople 04 Jun 10:19
spot [3] I think that is certainly a concern, and it is something I have been giving a great deal of thought to. It is important that we have some direction otherwise we become far too scattered, but at the same time, we need to ensure that contributors are able to shape Fedora into something useful for their own needs with a minimal amount of pain. 04 Jun 10:20
spot [3] It's a balancing act, but I think it is possible. 04 Jun 10:20
jwb so i'm noting a huge similarity in our answers :) 04 Jun 10:20
mmcgrath [2] There's always that danger, and how we're defined now constrains us. Closed codecs immediately comes to mind. But in order to take Fedora to the next level we need to focus our efforts a bit. Everyone on every team can't just do whatever they want without any direction. There's got to be a balance. 04 Jun 10:20
spot jwb: gmta. ;) 04 Jun 10:20
mmcgrath oops, that should have been a 3 04 Jun 10:20
mmcgrath [3] There's always that danger, and how we're defined now constrains us. Closed codecs immediately comes to mind. But in order to take Fedora to the next level we need to focus our efforts a bit. Everyone on every team can't just do whatever they want without any direction. There's got to be a balance. 04 Jun 10:20
ke4qqq [3] I think that depends on how tightly it's defined. If we came away with a definition that said we are $footypeofuser's desktop distro for instance, I think we'd be constrained. I'd advoate a very loose definition I'd think - with the idea that contributors drive the definition and it will change over time 04 Jun 10:20
* stickster rearranges queue 04 Jun 10:22
stickster [4] from mdomsch: There are basically two types of Boards: activist (the members actively drive projects and direction), and policy-setting (the members set policy and guidelines, but other groups drive the activity). How do you perceive the current/previous Board in this regard, and would you change that if you were a member? 04 Jun 10:23
dgilmore [4] i think previous boartds have been a mixture of both. i think that should continue. the hard unsexy things should eb driven by board members. while the fun sexy things should be delegated to those who can do the best job. 04 Jun 10:24
spot [4] Well, as a member of the current board, I like to think that we're both, as the opportunity merits. Certainly, we want to leverage the expertise in the Fedora communities, I wouldn't say that it is the Board's role to drive Documentation initiatives. 04 Jun 10:24
jwb [4] i view the current Board as a mix of both. almost all of the members are actively involved in driving some subset of fedora 04 Jun 10:24
ke4qqq [4] Well from the standpoint of the members, the current board is composed of people who help drive the project, and are thus activist. That said the Board as an entity seems a bit more policy-setting, with the people involved driving various aspects. Personally I think that is the way it will continue and think it's a good thing. 04 Jun 10:25
spot [4] But, on matters where it is a good fit for the Board to drive projects forward, I think we are able to do so. 04 Jun 10:25
stickster dgilmore: So are you saying that being on the Board is inherently an unsexy job? 04 Jun 10:25
jwb [4] and i think the mix is important to have a balanced Board. nothing is worse than when people try to actively steer something they know nothing about, so involving and deferring to those more in-tune with the item is a good thing 04 Jun 10:25
mmcgrath [4] The recent sensorship ruling is clearly a sign of the activist board. Generally though I wouldn't think the board should be activist/policy setting. I think the board should be in charge of larger more broad decisions, more vision. 04 Jun 10:25
jwb stickster, i think all of our committees are pretty unsexy 04 Jun 10:26
spot [4] I'd disagree with Mike. The Board's moderation policy is an example of both. 04 Jun 10:26
dgilmore stickster: not neccesarilly unsexy. but sometimes its hard and the work is not as fun or intresting as other things. but being on the board means that we need to make sure the unfun things that need doing get done 04 Jun 10:26
ke4qqq all leadership basically comes down to doing the things others don't want to do. 04 Jun 10:26
mmcgrath [4] The question is where the boards power to actually do things lies. I think that's an area that could use some attention. 04 Jun 10:26
jwb stickster, we don't join them for glamor or fame. we should join them because we care and we want to help 04 Jun 10:27
spot [4] The Board defined policy but also took responsibility to implement and enforce it. 04 Jun 10:27
stickster mmcgrath: Please elaborate :-) 04 Jun 10:27
mmcgrath [4] I think the board generally agrees we need better QA, I seem to remember it being talked about for years. Yet we're still here needing better QA. 04 Jun 10:28
mmcgrath [4] And I know that's being worked on, I do. Just an example. 04 Jun 10:28
jwb QA is a never ending 'need to get better' 04 Jun 10:28
spot mmcgrath: we'll always need better QA. I don't think that ever goes away, and I do think we're making good progress. 04 Jun 10:28
mmcgrath 04 Jun 10:29
* mmcgrath thinks one measure of QA is slipping. 04 Jun 10:29
mmcgrath s/measure/metric/ 04 Jun 10:29
ke4qqq I would hope that the board wouldn't devolve into telling groups how to do better QA - even though specific members are no doubt subject matter experts. 04 Jun 10:29
stickster mmcgrath: Can you elaborate on what attention you would bring to the Board's ability to do things, and how that concerns your example of QA? 04 Jun 10:29
spot i think it might be a bit of a fickle metric, because I believe that the Fedora community would rather have us slip a week to fix a nasty bug that has a wide effect than to ship with it. 04 Jun 10:30
* stickster using his moderator status to encourage the Board candidates to be specific if they'd like 04 Jun 10:30
mmcgrath spot: that's the other metric, both measure QA. 04 Jun 10:30
spot mmcgrath: yes, but they tend to conflict with each other. 04 Jun 10:30
jwb ke4qqq, i think the Board could certainly inquire about it. they are charged with Fedora as both a project and product. if the product sucks, asking why and what is being done to fix it seems prudent 04 Jun 10:30
ke4qqq at the same time, if QA came and said it needs help to get the job done from a resources (that are under the boards purview) or policy standpoint, that makes perfect sense 04 Jun 10:30
jwb not that i think fedora sucks. just an example 04 Jun 10:30
mmcgrath spot: they're the same symptom of bad QA. 04 Jun 10:31
spot mmcgrath: i disagree. 04 Jun 10:31
mmcgrath with good QA, things don't slip, and don't ship with blocker bugs. 04 Jun 10:31
spot bad QA would be not catching the bug at all 04 Jun 10:31
mmcgrath you shouldn't have to chose between the two. 04 Jun 10:31
mmcgrath that's QA from 2 years ago. So we are making progress. 04 Jun 10:31
mmcgrath or 3 years ago :) 04 Jun 10:31
spot mmcgrath: with all due respect, i don't think we'll ever get to that utopian point of never having to slip. 04 Jun 10:31
jwb nor i 04 Jun 10:32
dgilmore spot: i agree, i think with a published release schedule we always risk slipping, if we find a late bug that possibly has a wide spread bad install experience that we owe it to the users to slip and fix the bug 04 Jun 10:32
spot minimizing slips is a noble goal and we should absolutely work towards it 04 Jun 10:32
jwb our schedule and change rate is too aggressive 04 Jun 10:32
mmcgrath stickster: I guess thats one reason I want to get more on the board, I'm confused on how the boards vision actually filters down into changes to the people that do the work. 04 Jun 10:32
spot but i don't think the existence of a slip is a slam against QA 04 Jun 10:32
mmcgrath spot: I think we can get to the point where sliping is the exception to the rule. 04 Jun 10:32
mmcgrath I'm totally not meaning to slam QA here, they're doing a lot of good works. 04 Jun 10:33
spot mmcgrath: certainly, but by construing it as a negative metric rather than a tool at our disposal, i feel we're sending the wrong mesage 04 Jun 10:33
stickster mmcgrath: OK, I think I understand, you weren't taking a position, but saying you want to find out more 04 Jun 10:33
mmcgrath I don't think we're sending any messages. And slipping isn't a positive metric. 04 Jun 10:33
spot mmcgrath: fixing showstopper bugs that are found late in the game is a positive metric in my book. :) 04 Jun 10:34
spot earlier is better than late 04 Jun 10:34
jwb silver lining 04 Jun 10:34
spot but late is better than never. :) 04 Jun 10:34
jwb we already have enough negative reinforcement :) 04 Jun 10:34
spot I do think it is important to have defined criteria on what constitutes a blocker 04 Jun 10:35
spot and I will be actively working to craft that criteria post F-11 04 Jun 10:35
jwb but you could do that outside of the Board 04 Jun 10:35
spot (with input from the Fedora Community, of course) 04 Jun 10:35
jwb and arguably, FESCo and QA are going to approve it, not the Board 04 Jun 10:35
stickster I have a few more questions waiting once candidates feel this one has been answered. 04 Jun 10:35
jwb so we're starting to wander into not-Board territory perhaps 04 Jun 10:36
spot jwb: indeed, note i did not say "when i get elected i will"... i said "i will" 04 Jun 10:36
mmcgrath stickster: bring it 04 Jun 10:36
jwb spot, yep 04 Jun 10:36
dgilmore stickster: please continue 04 Jun 10:36
jwb spot, i was using you as a fulcrum to move on. forgive me ;) 04 Jun 10:36
spot jwb: so that's why my back suddenly started hurting. ;) 04 Jun 10:36
stickster [5] from MadBus: To what extent should Fedora work with being compatible with non-free software vendors? To give a two-part example, should we accommodate users of proprietary drivers? Should we make it easier to obtain non-free software through the official Fedora repositories? 04 Jun 10:36
spot [5] I don't think Fedora should go out of its way to make it hard for end-users who want to choose non-free drivers, but I sure don't think we should make it easy. 04 Jun 10:37
mmcgrath [5] We shouldn't accomodate users of proprietary drivers. If it's important to the users there's other options available to them. We should make it easier for them to find those options. And our work with non-free software vendors should be around helping them free their software. 04 Jun 10:38
jwb [5] a) my personal belief is that binary and proprietary drivers run contrary to the best interests of Fedora and Linux in general. so.. what spot said 04 Jun 10:38
spot [5] We want to put pressure on these vendors to bring their drivers out of the darkness and into the light. 04 Jun 10:38
dgilmore [5] i think we should work with propietary software vendors to educate them and encourage them to look at open sourcing there products. I think there is no place in fedora to accomodate propietary software. certainly not in our repositories. it would violate our principles 04 Jun 10:38
spot [5] So, no, ignoring the legal reasons, I don't think we should make it easier to obtain non-free software in the official repositories. 04 Jun 10:38
ke4qqq [5] One of the core values that Fedora embraces is freedom. As such I don't think we should be exerting enormous extra cycles trying to make non-free software work - working to help make non-free software more attractive seems counterintuitive 04 Jun 10:38
jwb [5] b) in terms of making it easier to obtain non-free software through our repos, i also think that goes against the 4 core values of Fedora 04 Jun 10:39
ke4qqq [5] we should not make it easier to obtain non-free software via the repositories for the same reason. 04 Jun 10:39
spot [5] If we had simply taken in the non-free intel wireless drivers, would we have free drivers for that hardware today? What about the ATI driver improvements? 04 Jun 10:39
spot [5] Our stance is changing the world. :) 04 Jun 10:39
ke4qqq [5] Spot makes a good point - you don't make the software world more free by scratching the itch with non-free software. 04 Jun 10:40
dgilmore [5] spot: i am sure if we accepted the old intel drivers that we would still have them today. the world is better for everyone by us taking a stance. 04 Jun 10:40
jwb [5] there is a recent debate about free drivers that only interface to non-free userspace apps to make the hardware work 04 Jun 10:40
spot 04 Jun 10:41
* spot wonders if there is a question in there... ;) 04 Jun 10:41
stickster I think I have a follow-up question to [5] -- any examples of what Board candidates would do to help exert pressure on non-free software providers? 04 Jun 10:41
stickster (e.g. driver vendors) 04 Jun 10:41
jwb stickster, pressure on drivers or applications 04 Jun 10:41
spot [5b] I think we can point to the successes, to the efforts we have made to improve the free drivers. 04 Jun 10:42
spot [5b] Our kernel guys already do a great job of improving on and fixing upstreamed kernel drivers 04 Jun 10:42
spot [5b] That's a huge bonus for companies where their primary focus isn't necessarily on driver efforts 04 Jun 10:42
spot [5b] Especially in this economy, where the Linux driver may be maintained by one or two people 04 Jun 10:43
dgilmore [5b] we need to also exert influence on the "Commerical open source" vendors. who mostly dont operate in the spirit of open source 04 Jun 10:43
jwb stickster, i think that is a slightly misleading question. we can do as spot suggests, surely. but it's up to our users and contributors to get behind the goals driving this success and vote with their wallets to really exert any kind of pressure on vendors 04 Jun 10:43
dgilmore jwb: we can make noie and voice how people can help 04 Jun 10:44
spot [5b] To the best of my knowledge, the board has never been asked to take in something into Fedora that was non-free, but I can say that if it ever happened, I would oppose it. 04 Jun 10:44
stickster OK, I'm going to move to the next question in the queue 04 Jun 10:44
dgilmore i think until a strong stance is taken, companies like nvidia will continue on as they always have 04 Jun 10:44
ke4qqq This is one of those areas where the RH relationship is enormously helpful due to the pervasive nature of RHEL in the enterprise - we've seen companies like Yahoo be willing to work with us on changing terms. Moreover I think Fedora makes a great place for projects like nouveau to display what they have, and use our userbase to build. Surely that's not lost on companies who see us innovating them into obsolesence from a driver standpoint. 04 Jun 10:44
spot ke4qqq: an excellent point. :) 04 Jun 10:44
stickster spot: Good point, often those rejections happen at the package review level 04 Jun 10:44
stickster [6] from marth: Should Fedora target audience be defined separately by each SIG? And if so, how do we decide which target users get preference over others when it comes to decisions that affect more than one spin or SIG? 04 Jun 10:45
stickster While this question seems to read on FESCo, it's pretty much intertwined with some earlier questions, so have at it guys. 04 Jun 10:46
jwb uuf 04 Jun 10:46
spot [6] That's a great question, and I think the answer is yes, with a caveat. 04 Jun 10:46
spot [6] If a SIG's actions don't affect other SIGs, then yes, that is perfectly acceptable. 04 Jun 10:46
mmcgrath [6] No, Fedora needs central goals and vision. People that disagree with that goal or vision should join a different group that does meet their goals and visions. Choice in the linux world sucks if we're all the same. 04 Jun 10:46
spot [6] The problem is when they do affect other SIGs. I think thats when the Board has to define the direction and work with FESCo to arbitrate and make the hard decisions. 04 Jun 10:47
ke4qqq [6] This largely sounds like a FESCo matter - but.... yes SIGs should have a target audience, and they should define it themselves. If there are conflicts between SIGs that's a FESCo matter. 04 Jun 10:47
jwb [6] i think the SIGs can certainly define their own target audience. however, we need to have a "greater among equals" approach that is what we present to the users that aren't interested in a SIG and just want to use a great distro 04 Jun 10:47
dgilmore [6] fedora's target market is and should be wide and varied. there are as many markets as there are things you can think of. I think we need to enable the groups intrested in the different segments to be able to advocate the use of fedora in that segment. i think we are getting much much better at doing that. but we should have a primary focus that we work towards 04 Jun 10:47
mmcgrath [6] and I think our goals and vision has a great impact on who we're we're targeting. Every Fedora user could be a contributor. 04 Jun 10:47
jwb spot, are we having a 'see who can type faster' competition? :) 04 Jun 10:48
ke4qqq [6] from a personal standpoint - rule utilitarianism would be the deciding factor within the framework of Fedora's standards. 04 Jun 10:48
spot jwb: nope. :) 04 Jun 10:48
stickster ke4qqq: Can you elaborate on that? 04 Jun 10:49
* stickster trying to understand the answer himself! :-) 04 Jun 10:49
ke4qqq [6] Sure - so if the mailscanner SIG wanted to change the default MTA to postfix for the entire distribution while the amavis SIG (fictional) wants exim as the default, the 04 Jun 10:50
ke4qqq the impact of the change has to be weighed 04 Jun 10:50
ke4qqq does it hurt more to go one way or another, or to leave the mta as sendmail 04 Jun 10:51
mmcgrath but not by the board. 04 Jun 10:51
ke4qqq right not a board decision 04 Jun 10:51
ke4qqq FESCo 04 Jun 10:51
dgilmore ke4qqq: that would be up to FESCo 04 Jun 10:51
jwb that almost sounds like an exim SIG and a postfix SIG ;) 04 Jun 10:51
ke4qqq sure, which was part of the earlier answer - and prefixed with 'personally' 04 Jun 10:51
ke4qqq jwb: obfuscation helps the agenda :) 04 Jun 10:52
stickster Here's a non-FESCo question that reads on this issue -- How much latitude would you, as a Board candidate, give "official" Fedora spins (receiving the name and trademark) to change behaviors of the distribution? 04 Jun 10:52
jwb stickster, you read my mind 04 Jun 10:52
dgilmore stickster: as long as everything was availabe in fedora then it would be ok 04 Jun 10:53
spot I think we give the spins a fair amount of latitude as is, and I don't think there is a problem with that. 04 Jun 10:53
jwb alternative Spins are a great way for SIGs to showcase the best of what they are interested it. however i think as an overall project, we should be promoting the primary spin by default. mostly for the same reasons i think we need a 'greater among equals' approach overall 04 Jun 10:53
mmcgrath [7] If it's all Fedora software, they should be allowed to do whatever is legal. 04 Jun 10:53
ke4qqq I think that provided it's nothing truly deletirious (wiping hard drives with no warning as an example) that pretty wide latitude would be afforded, provided other requirements were met 04 Jun 10:54
jwb mmcgrath, but does Fedora as a project host and promote it? 04 Jun 10:54
jwb maybe i misunderstood the spirit of stickster's question 04 Jun 10:54
mmcgrath jwb: if we have space for it we would yes, spins sigs are in charge of promotion though. 04 Jun 10:54
mmcgrath though they can certainly work with the marketing team. 04 Jun 10:55
jwb mmcgrath, so if i were to make a 'jwb spin' that basically was just the set of applciations i use daily, you'd host it? 04 Jun 10:55
mmcgrath If you got permission to receive the name and trademark for jwb spin, yes. 04 Jun 10:55
ke4qqq jwb: would you apply to be an official JWB Fedora Spin 04 Jun 10:55
mmcgrath and if we had space for it. 04 Jun 10:55
dgilmore jwb: if there was enough interest and it wasnt very close to an existing spin 04 Jun 10:55
jwb mmcgrath, and as a Board member, would you grant that permission? 04 Jun 10:56
spot 04 Jun 10:56
* spot doesn't want to be in the business of having to tell people, no, you can't scratch that itch. :) 04 Jun 10:56
mmcgrath jwb: I'd need to see the proposal but probably. Now having said that I think we need a pruning policy. If jwb spin is a failure a year from now and only jwb uses it. It should go. 04 Jun 10:56
stickster OK, we have at least one more question in the queue 04 Jun 10:57
jwb my point is, there is a difference between granting permission and actually getting behind something as a great facet of Fedroa 04 Jun 10:57
mmcgrath both because it wastes space, and because it hurts the Fedora brand if its stinky. But I want to give people the ability to do what they can. Everyone should be allowed to nurish potential. 04 Jun 10:57
jwb anyway, that was a derivation 04 Jun 10:57
jwb and i can't believe i just typoed Fedora 04 Jun 10:57
stickster [7] from glezos: Fedora, contrary to Debian for example, has one, main sponsor / great partner, namely Red Hat. What's your take in having more than one and what steps are needed in your opinion to get there? 04 Jun 10:57
mmcgrath jwb: tahts ok ;-P 04 Jun 10:57
spot [7] I think Fedora is lucky in that we really don't need another "Red Hat" level sponsor in order to be successful and well funded. 04 Jun 10:58
mmcgrath [7] I think Fedora the OS will probably always be primarly sponsored by Red Hat. I think there's other areas Fedora the Project should expand into. I really feel the Fedora Project should be where anything and everything new comes to be worked out. 04 Jun 10:59
spot [7] If another qualified partner came along who was in line with our interests and had something valuable to contribute, I'd certainly consider it, but I don't think we need to go looking for one. 04 Jun 10:59
jwb [7] without a vendor-neutral foundation i think that is going to be rather hard in terms of the same level of contribution that RH makes 04 Jun 10:59
mmcgrath [7] I'd love a future where Dell, IBM, hell even Canonical comes to Fedora to get some $NEW_SOFTWARE piece put to the test. We have the right people, and some of the smartest people in our industry. 04 Jun 10:59
ke4qqq [7] We have a number of other sponsors, but certainly not at the level of RHT. That said, I think adding more could improve public perception of Fedora. Intel with Moblin will probably never become significant sponsor, but I could imagine something along those lines with $yettobediscoveredsponsor. I think the real issue is setting the expectation of what sponsoring gets you. 04 Jun 11:00
dgilmore [7] if someone wanted to step up and support fedora to the same level, say intel, hp, ibm, dell, sun. whoever if it was going to be a ongoing thing then we would need to look to restructuring to support that. but until something viable comes up and those organisations start providing resources on the same level its unrealistic to look at what would be needed 04 Jun 11:00
jwb [7] but it's important to point out that corporations can contribute to Fedora by simply having their employees assigned to work on it partly, using it internally, etc 04 Jun 11:00
ke4qqq [7] I don't think having someone throw wads of cash or equipment at us is necessarily a good thing, but someone doing that with lots of people could be very productive. 04 Jun 11:00
mmcgrath [7] As far as actual sponsorship goes though? We need to be open to ideas, but the problem is finding exactly what people are going to want to do, and what we're willing to let them do. It'd be great if someone like rackspace came and said "we'll host all your needs from now on" 04 Jun 11:00
stickster I have a specific follow-up that's worthwhile: [7b] from MadBus: If IBM wanted to give us $1M to be mentioned in the installer, what would you recommend? 04 Jun 11:01
mmcgrath [7] But what they'd want in return for that is a major question. 04 Jun 11:01
jwb 04 Jun 11:01
* jwb sighs 04 Jun 11:01
jwb stickster, i can't comment on 7b 04 Jun 11:01
stickster Oops. 04 Jun 11:01
stickster Let me substitute: 04 Jun 11:01
mmcgrath s/IBM/HAL/ 04 Jun 11:01
stickster s/IBM/ACME Corp./ 04 Jun 11:01
mmcgrath  :) 04 Jun 11:01
spot [7b]: That they spend that $1M in code contributions. It is worth noting that IBM already does spend a lot more than that amount in their contributions to FOSS. 04 Jun 11:02
dgilmore [7b] i dont think we should be in the business of selling advertising 04 Jun 11:02
spot [7b]: IMHO, we're not hurting for money so bad that we need to "whore" out our installer. :) 04 Jun 11:02
spot It's not a race car, after all. 04 Jun 11:02
jwb [7b] selling ad space to a company seems odd to me 04 Jun 11:02
ke4qqq 1M seems pretty small, and we already have issues with taking money. 04 Jun 11:03
dgilmore [7b] if they said we want to spend $1m on developers for the installer. then id look favourably at it, though they could just do that today. 04 Jun 11:03
mmcgrath [7b] I'd want to see exactly what we'd be doing with the money before saying yes. Right now we're not hurting for money at least on hosting. But I can imagine some scenarios where we'd want it. Fedora is positioned for quick change, lets say the Linux Foundation goes bust. 04 Jun 11:04
* stickster notes that nothing stops *any* commercial contributor from sinking money into Fedora-related work, and allows them to retain control over the how and why. 04 Jun 11:04
mmcgrath [7b] that's bad for lots of people, including IBM. Now lets say we (with IBM) came to an agreement that we'd take over for them, even have the people working under the Fedora umbrella, clearly that's a major change for Fedora and clearly it's going to cost money. But Fedora is well positioned for such a thing, provided some extra $$ 04 Jun 11:05
ke4qqq though similar mechanisms have worked well for Mozilla, but I think spots right, we don't seem to be hurting for money, and where would we draw the line?? Microsoft putting ads in the installer. But as noted, we have historically had problems accepting 'cash'. in-kind is far easier to deal with. 04 Jun 11:05
dgilmore stickster: right, they can do the things that they need to to support there intrerests. as long as its free and open 04 Jun 11:05
mmcgrath [7b] not saying that it could or should happen. But in that scenario, I wouldn't just blindly say "no" 04 Jun 11:05
stickster Is there anyone who thinks there are steps we can/should take to elicit such contributions? 04 Jun 11:05
* stickster notes that we are 5 minutes past the hour and some candidates may have appointments elsewhere. 04 Jun 11:06
spot Fedora: Sponsored by Viagara! We both keep your uptime as long as possible. 04 Jun 11:06
jwb hahahaa 04 Jun 11:06
ke4qqq stickster: sure - we could ask. 04 Jun 11:06
mmcgrath spot: if your server has been up for more then 4 hours, it's time for a reboot. 04 Jun 11:06
mmcgrath stickster: right now. No. But if there's something we want to accomplish but can't and it's because of $$. Maybe. 04 Jun 11:07
jwb stickster, elicit monetary contributions, no. manpower contributions, absolutely 04 Jun 11:07
spot are there any more Questions in the queue? 04 Jun 11:07
spot i don't want to leave anyone hanging, but I do have stuff to do. :) 04 Jun 11:07
dgilmore stickster: I think we are getting some of them now. companies that have interesting products should be approached to get there open source software into fedora. 04 Jun 11:07
stickster jwb: There is a pending question on that very subject. The person asking will hold it until tonight. 04 Jun 11:07
ke4qqq stickster: aside from a few specific instances, I can't recall any time we've asked an outside org for money . But we clearly need to be prepared for how we could ask for money as it's a huge thorny issue. 04 Jun 11:07
stickster OK, we're out of questions for now. 04 Jun 11:08
dgilmore thanks stickster 04 Jun 11:08
jwb stickster, i might not be available tonight, so if they want a reply they can email me 04 Jun 11:08
stickster Let's call it a session and thank you to all of you for being here. 04 Jun 11:08
stickster Spot, sorry for the delaye. 04 Jun 11:08
spot Thanks to stickster and everyone else who submitted a question. 04 Jun 11:08
stickster delay, even. 04 Jun 11:08
ke4qqq dgilmore: we've asked - in at least two cases we've had people dedicate personnel - and in both I am familiar with the reviews have stagnated 04 Jun 11:08
mmcgrath stickster: thanks 04 Jun 11:08
jwb thanks all 04 Jun 11:08
dgilmore if anyone is so inclined ping me or email me to ask questions 04 Jun 11:08
* stickster will hang here until all candidates feel they're done answering. 04 Jun 11:08
ke4qqq and stagnated on fedora's end 04 Jun 11:09
ke4qqq 04 Jun 11:09
* ke4qqq will shut up about his pet peeve now. 04 Jun 11:09

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!