From Fedora Project Wiki

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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: User:Pfrields/Different_default_offering
  • Added page: 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?
  • Can Spins/SIGS or Fedora remixes change the code enough to meet their goals?
  • http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2010-February/000996.html
  • Summary of what Matt has tracked down so far 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:
  • 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
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Meeting:Board_strategic_working_group_2010-02-22&oldid=472219"