Meeting:Board meeting 2009-04-29

= Fedora Project Board Meeting :: Wednesday 2009-04-29 =

Roll Call

 * Board Members: Paul Frields, Dimitris Glezos, Bill Nottingham, Spot Callaway, Matt Domsch, Seth Vidal, Jesse Keating, Chris Tyler, Christopher Aillon
 * Regrets: Harald Hoyer
 * Secretary: John Poelstra

Belgian Domain Request

 * previously: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-04-22#be.fedoracommunity.org_Domain_Request
 * Paul: board is still waiting for response from requestor
 * Paul: guidelines have been updated so all community members are on level playing field for requests

What is Fedora?

 * previously: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2009-04-22#What_is_Fedora.3F
 * Paul:
 * 1) Have we finished discussing this topic?
 * 2) What is the board's role: arbitrate problems or lead with new initiatives?

Discussion occurred; proposals and decisions have been tabled to the next meeting.

 BRAINSTORMING FOLLOWS -- THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BOARD POLICY OR DECISION 


 * Paul
 * Is the board OK with the current process we are on surrounding defining Fedora and its goals and purposes? ((have we answered this question?))
 * Suggests that board next move forward with a prioritized list of goals for Fedora. To do that we need a foundation for what Fedora is about
 * How do we decide what is most important to Fedora? ((have we answered this question?))
 * Could this affect release processes and policies and what drives them?
 * How does the board help guide and lead the project?
 * Matt: board should be more than judges, we should lead new initiatives
 * Seth: we owe it to everyone to be clear about whether the desktop team is the decider for what fedora's technical decisions and directions are. Or not.
 * CTyler: seems there is lack of clarity in community about Fedora
 * Notting: Would clarity on any of the question of "What is Fedora" have helped quell or guide the recent upheavals on fedora-devel-list? Tend to believe no
 * Point is not to derail FESCo decision-making, on the contrary to ensure they have sufficient input, e.g. schedules
 * Spot on how schedules and slip/no-slip decisions are made:
 * Schedule drafted by Rel-Eng
 * Schedule sent to FESCo for approval
 * Approved schedule documented
 * At major milestone points, representatives from each key Fedora group report on readiness status
 * If any Fedora group feels like we need to slip, we discuss it and decide on whether or not to slip
 * Community seems to want answer of is "Fedora a Desktop" or "Who is the target user" and not so much "What is Fedora?"
 * Can we delegate "Who is Fedora's target audience is" to each SIG? i.e., each Spin sets its target audience.
 * jkeating thinks that less choice would be more effective.
 * spot disagreed somewhat and thinks that representing the spins in a list helps us extend our user base.
 * wants FESCo to continue to arbitrate requests for changes that could affect more than that spin (like default behaviors, package changes, etc.)
 * jkeating: Brings us back to who we want to target. Some change is going to break the experience for everyone.
 * notting: We've made changes that affect GNOME & KDE, and we leave other desktops' changes to others. (jkeating: Sometimes GNOME only.)
 * How do we decide where the lines are between which target users get preference over others?
 * spot: Suggest that GNOME Desktop spin be explicitly acknowledged as default ("first among equals") -- Changes to benefit other Spins that create a conflict should be arbitrated by FESCo, with guidance that the GNOME Desktop spin wins if all else is equal. If those changes are not amenable to the GNOME desktop SIG, then they go to FESCo for arbitration. If FESCo feels that the change is worthwhile, they should escalate to the Board for final decision.