Meeting:Board strategic working group 2010-02-22

Roll Call

 * Attendees: John Poelstra, Paul Frields, Matt Domsch, Colin Walters, Mike McGrath
 * Regrets: Chris Tyler

Default Distribution Offering

 * Owner: Paul Frields
 * Question being answered: "On what basis do we have a default offering?"
 * Original page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Different_default_offering
 * Added page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Current_default_offering
 * After some discussion group felt Paul should do a little more work on second page explaining:
 * why we ended up with the default we did, which combines a number of technologies into a platform:
 * GNOME Desktop Environment
 * Compiz (not actually a part of GNOME, but prominent in the UI)
 * Firefox and other third party apps
 * SELinux
 * kernel
 * Is this due to Red Hat as Fedora's main sponsor?
 * In part, because Fedora is driven by contribution, and Red Hat as a Fedora contributor drives a massive amount of free software innovation done directly in the kernel, tools, security, desktop, and elsewhere, and then quickly inherited into Fedora where it can be distributed in consumable form
 * R&D lab idea allows anyone to grow technology in Fedora
 * But other pieces of the platform are "best of breed FOSS" but not due to Red Hat or Fedora necessarily, e.g. Firefox
 * Not just about a desktop environment, but in the future need to give thought to how to design the whole system
 * We need to give thought whenever components change; and we have more room available now (> CD size)
 * NEXT ACTIONS:
 * Paul will do more drafting and post back to Board

Clarifying Issues Around Spins

 * Owners: Matt & Colin
 * Can Spins/SIGS or Fedora remixes define their own target audience?
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Walters/SpinsSigsRemixes_TargetAudience
 * Can Spins/SIGS or Fedora remixes change the code enough to meet their goals?
 * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Walters/SpinsSigsRemixes_ChangeDistribution
 * http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2010-February/000996.html
 * Summary of what Matt has tracked down so far https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mdomsch/SWG_Spins
 * As part of the research for this this we tried to get a clearer picture of what the Spins SIG is responsibile for. We understand those responsibilities to be:
 * Managing the approval process for new spins
 * spins pages
 * kickstart file is good
 * Coordinating Board trademark approval
 * Individual spin owners may not participate in the SIG, so will need to reach out to them directly.
 * Spins pain points raised on this recent thread:
 * http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-February/007975.html and following for many messages. These are additional to the questions we asked of them
 * We still want to make sure that the work of the Spins SIG is not blocked
 * Fedora as a project may not be able to provide all necessary resources to every Spin
 * Spins are a way for contributors to gather connected communities of contributors, create more awareness and contribution to Fedora
 * Community building is primarily a problem of increasing people capacity, not simply working harder
 * Build infrastructure capacity, storage space, etc. -- technical blockers are critical path items
 * Enable easy processes (TM licensing/approvals, etc.) to help contributors without inducing mass chaos
 * alternately, do allow mass chaos where appropriate (Fedora Remix)
 * Make it easier for contributors to help anywhere they want -- lower barriers so that anyone can build the actual workforce in the Fedora Project
 * NEXT STEPS:
 * Matt to email each of the spin owners with the original questions posed to the Spins SIG

Next Meeting

 * March 1, 2010 @ 3 PM EST
 * Discussion topics:
 * Follow-up to Matt and Colin's work on Spins