meeting today -- agenda items, anyone?
by Matthew Miller
We have our informal open floor IRC meeting scheduled for 17:00 UTC in
#fedora-council on Freenode today. While the "okay, what shall we talk
about?" format has worked surprisingly well, if anyone has anything
they want to be sure makes the agenda, let me know!
There wasn't a lot to talk about last week, and from my point of view
last week was consumed by the Red Hat Summit so not much has changed.
Remy, do you have things to report on?
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
8 years, 9 months
[council] #33: Trademark approval for Fedora Atomic Host
by fedora-badges
#33: Trademark approval for Fedora Atomic Host
------------------------+-------------------
Reporter: mattdm | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: Trademarks | Keywords: atomic
------------------------+-------------------
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Two_Week_Atomic for background.
"Fedora Atomic Host" is analogous to a spin — a new combination of
unmodified Fedora software. This requires Council permission as outlined
in the
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Trademark_guidelines#New_combination...
trademark guidelines].
Note that in this plan, Fedora Atomic Host releases will be built on only
software provided by official Fedora repositories, but will not directly
follow the main Fedora distribution release cycle. The Fedora Atomic Host
releases will be numberless, and instead identified by their production
date. (Either an exact date, or year + week number, or similar.)
Therefore, we'd also like permission to use the phrase "Fedora Atomic
Host, based on Fedora 22" and similar (e.g. "Fedora Atomic Host 2015-w50,
based on Fedora 23", and so on, along with other minor typographical
variants, e.g. "Fedora Atomic Host (based on Fedora 22)").
I think this is an exciting new area for Fedora, and hope this is non-
controversial, but trademark stewardship is not a lightweight matter, so
I'd like to call for full consensus — at least three +1s and no -1s within
seven days. Thank you!
We will also use a logo designed by the official Fedora Design team. This
will likely follow the
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines#Fedora_Sub-
Logos:_Standard_uses_of_the_Fedora_Logo_with_other_elements standard sub-
logo template] and not need additional Council approval; if the design
team suggests something else which would need approval I'll file a
separate request.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/33>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
8 years, 9 months
cancel monday meeting?
by Matthew Miller
With Summit next week, and me busy with other stuff most of this week,
I'm not sure I can reasonably do the meeting on Monday. How do you all
feel about skipping? Are there particular urgent agenda items that need
"live" attention?
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
8 years, 9 months
[council] #26: Objective Proposal: Fedora Modularization (Requirements Phase)
by fedora-badges
#26: Objective Proposal: Fedora Modularization (Requirements Phase)
------------------------+-------------------
Reporter: langdon | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: Objectives | Keywords:
------------------------+-------------------
= Fedora Modularization: Fedora.next: What is Next (Requirements Phase) =
== Background ==
We have had much discussion of the "rings proposal" and "fedora.next."
However, it has not been completely clear what to "do next" now that the
proposal has been accepted. While, the largest change has been made
(introduction of "editions"), it is time to focus on the next steps. I
(and others) thought it would be helpful to have an "Objective" to
coalesce the work.
== Objective: Fedora Modularization: Fedora.next: What is Next
(Requirements Phase) ==
=== Overview ===
For this Objective, we want to specifically focus on the “technical”
aspects of the rings proposal(s). By “technical” we mean "how we want to
move forward regarding the composition of the OS (in all Fedora
Editions)". However, we don’t expect the participants in the discussion to
be limited to technical folks.
While much discussion has taken place regarding methods for distribution,
what has become most clear is that there are a number of constituencies
within Fedora which have competing, and perhaps, conflicting requirements
for the long term plan.
=== Expected Impact ===
* A set of requirements, perhaps conflicting, to move forward with
=== Timeframe ===
We need to move quickly on this work. Proposing that the requirements
list(s) be complete by Flock 2015.
=== Approach ===
Fedora.next Modularization will be tackled in three phases (requirements
gathering, solution identification & agreement, and, finally,
implementation), this Objective covers the first of those phases. For the
"requirements gathering" phase, we expect to:
1. Ask the WGs to identify segments of their user population which may
benefit from a modularized approach to OS composition. Please use the list
below to get started.
1. Ask the WGs to reach out to their population segments to get feedback.
Perhaps sending an email to the appropriate mailing list and holding 2-3
"town hall" meetings (by segment) to gather feedback
1. Provide both the raw feedback and prioritized set of requirements, by
user segment, to the Objective Team
=== Detailed Approach ===
We have identified several different types of Fedora user. Some of these
user types might benefit strongly from this approach; for others, perhaps
less. These different groups are Fedora users who:
* Wish to primarily run Fedora approved applications for the full
lifecycle of a given release (or longer)
* Wish to primarily run 3rd party applications for the full lifecycle of a
given release (or longer)
* Develop applications based on frameworks provided by Fedora but will
ultimately be deployed to a server (i.e. web apps)
* Develop applications based on frameworks provided by Fedora which will
be deployed on desktops (e.g. gnome-boxes)
* Develop components of Fedora itself or the frameworks Fedora provides
(e.g. kernel, apache, python)
Side note: here, “Fedora approved” means a binary in an official Fedora
repository of some kind (might be main rpms, playground, or some other
method of distribution).
We would like to ask the WGs to identify which of the above applies to
their existing user population. And, of course, propose any other
additional categories that may have been missed.
Next, we would like the WGs to gather feedback from users, by user
category. Below find some ideas for questions or topics; please share
with us (and the other WGs) any other questions/topics you come up with.
* Nature of updates: disconnected updates, connected updates, live
updates, user initiated, automatic
* Support for multiple versions of "components" (either dependencies or
user tools)
* "Quality" of available components. Multiple aspects here: Are beta
versions of tools available? Improperly packaged components? Does "method
of delivery" (e.g. containers vs rpm) change the opinions? (For example,
if a beta of a tool was delivered in a container that couldn't "hurt" the
base OS, would that be more acceptable than a tradtional RPM?)
* Flexibility: Is it OK to have components that are not installable
together? Or "sets of components" that work together and come as a unit?
(Made up example: "php-support" can be provided by the "php-nginx" or the
"php-apache" but you can't have both at once)
* Can/should different sub-components have different "lifecycles" vs the
OS? (For example, can F23 ship with Gnome 3-LTS but then have Gnome-Fast
shipping within the F23 lifecycle?)
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/26>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
8 years, 9 months
open floor meeting today
by Matthew Miller
Apologies for not sending an announcement earlier. Today we'll have an
informal drop-in open-floor in #fedora-council at 17:00 UTC.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
8 years, 9 months
Council Meeting this Monday!
by Matthew Miller
We will have a meeting this Monday (again via Google hangouts) with a
presentation from Mike Ruckman (roshi) about the state of Fedora
Quality Assurance.
Time is 17:00 UTC -- I'll send out an annoucement with the live URL
shortly before, and with a link to video after.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
8 years, 9 months
On Fedora's goal - is it to build an OS people can use, or to build a free as in gratis OS that people can use, or is it to build a free as in libre OS that people can use?
by Ankur Sinha
Hello all,
I've been around in the community for quite a bit, and while I'm not a
kernel-dev or a team lead, I still like to think I belong to the
community - helping where I can. Why I've stuck around over the years,
other than because I've made friends in the community that I'd miss, is
the philosophy of Fedora - the stance we take towards FOSS - which
distinguishes us from any other Linux distribution.
Recently, since we moved on to Fedora.next, we've been working hard to
make the OS as user friendly as we can - the OS must be easy to set up
and use if we're to gain users, and gain market share in the process.
But, what is the purpose of this drive to increase our market share?
*Why* do we want more users? To beat other distributions in numbers? So
that we can say we have more users than them?
As I've always understood it, the primary goal of the Fedora community
is to spread awareness about FOSS, and the OS is a *tool* to accomplish
this goal - the more we improve the OS, the more users we have, the
more we can spread philosophy of FOSS.
Recently, though, I've begun to feel like the goal has just become to
"gain more users", and the "in order to spread FOSS" part is slowly
losing its importance. We've been discussing inclusion of non FOSS
software, for example - in whatever capacity - repositories, meta-data
links, the software itself - you will be aware that we've had a fesco
ticket discussing policy changes too. (FESCo refused and asked the
concerned parties to take it up with the Board)
The reason why we do not include non FOSS software seems to have
changed from "because we want to only use FOSS - that is our mission"
to "because including non FOSS software may risk RH, the company that
backs us", somewhere along the line. While the latter is true, it
distresses me to think that for some, this has now become the primary
reason. The primary reason used to be "because we want our users to use
FOSS as much as practically possible", and it is fortunate that this
fit in perfectly with protecting RH. Surely, RH Legal should not be the
the set of people stopping us from including non FOSS software??
(I'm not being naive here, I do understand that it is really important
that we don't expose RH to liability, but the point is, that as a
member of the Fedora community, this cannot be the primary reason.)
This change seems to have happened because we've started taking Fedora
being FOSS for granted. We just don't think, speak or write about it
enough - we're too engrossed in making good products for users to the
level that people actually consider changing policy just to make a
product "easier to use". (I'm all for making Fedora easier to use. If
you were on the planet today, you'd have seen my post about Appstream
data for RPMFusion.)
As an isolated example, the workstation mission statement begins: "The
Fedora Workstation working group aims to create a reliable, user
-friendly and powerful operating system for laptops and PC hardware."
The term FOSS does not figure here. This is our primary product aimed
at end users.
The simplest solution is to restart actively speaking about FOSS, about
actually working on increasing awareness - our primary goal. I've
written this to the council discuss list and not another because the
council is tasked with leading the community - and not only towards a
good OS implementation wise, but also towards the primary goal of
spreading FOSS, which to me, is what gives Fedora its identity in the
first place. I hope this will stimulate a discussion about what we need
to do to get the primary goal of the community back into focus.
At a non council level, some of us have been thinking about an essay
contest, which decause very nicely coined "Why we FOSS". The idea is to
have a competition to get people to write why they use Fedora and open
source software - and to use these essays as a medium to spread
awareness. It's just an idea and we're working on details, but it's a
start. decause also suggested that the contest also be held as part of
the university outreach program, to expose young minds to the
philosophy.
In conclusion, the community seems to be forgetting that our goal is to
spread FOSS and the OS is a tool to achieve this, and I would very much
like the council to think about this and how this needs to be
rectified.
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
8 years, 10 months
[council] #30: Auxiliary seat change - approve Jan Kurik as a new Council member
by fedora-badges
#30: Auxiliary seat change - approve Jan Kurik as a new Council member
---------------------+-------------------
Reporter: jreznik | Owner:
Status: new | Priority: normal
Component: General | Keywords:
---------------------+-------------------
Fedora Program Manager (FPgM) coordinates the planning and scheduling of
Fedora releases, and tracks changes and features during the development
and testing cycle. He or she also assists with the creation, maintenance,
and execution of formal, repeatable Fedora processes. Additionally, the
FPgM serves as record keeper and secretary for Fedora Council Meetings.
I'm no longer going to work in this position, Fedora 22 was released
yesterday and Jan Kurik is taking care of Fedora 23+ as the new FPgM. As
per policy [1], Council approval is required.
I recommend Jan as he's already filling the FPgM role for Fedora 23 - from
scheduling, changes submission processing to improvements in releng
processes. I'm very happy he was selected and funded by Red Hat and as I
know him, he's truly dedicated hacker that will perfectly fit into the
Fedora Project and Council. Of course he is/will get as much as possible
help from me, to make sure it's smooth change.
We're already under transition, please take this ticket as my official
resignation from the Council. I'm very proud and happy that FPgM is now
officially recognized as part of Fedora leadership team. And maybe one day
I'll be back in one of Fedora elected roles, who knows :).
Thanks!
Jaroslav
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council#Auxiliary_Seats
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/30>
council <https://fedorahosted.org/council>
Fedora Council Public Tickets
8 years, 10 months