6:34 a.m.
2013/10/27, Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)gmail.com>:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 19:05:37 +0800
Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems that most of members from the new formed groups are
> working for Red Hat. Well it's helpful to strengthen our technical
> base but are there any plots for other people?
Well, if I believe this ticket [1]: "Each working group should be
comprised of no more than half (rounded up) of Red Hat employees. This
is to avoid the misconception that Red Hat is dictating the planning
here. "
That a good rule.
>
> Thanks.
The working groups are about code,
how it interacts with other code.
Then marketing will be needed to
spread what has been accepted
to the world.
What other need do you see?
In my mind, Ambassadors are more near of users than developers or
marketing team. Ambassadors organize all the events, submit new
idea... It is really important to have at least an ambassador in WG
Alexandre
6:50 a.m.
New subject: Ambassadors places in new Working Groups
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:34:01 +0100
Nobrakal <nobrakal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In my mind, Ambassadors are more near of users than developers or
marketing team. Ambassadors organize all the events, submit new
idea... It is really important to have at least an ambassador in WG
Alexandre
It is also important to have them in freemedia,
don't see that happening, too often.
--
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
8:46 a.m.
New subject: Ambassadors places in new Working Groups
2013/10/27, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com>:
On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 12:27 +0100, Nobrakal wrote:
> In my mind, Ambassadors are more near of users than developers or
> marketing team. Ambassadors organize all the events, submit new
> idea... It is really important to have at least an ambassador in WG
I don't think Amabssdors must be part of the WGs, unless they also have
a skill set relevant to the WG. For example, Tuan isn't just an
ambassador. He works with servers and therefore brings certain knowledge
that will be useful to the WG.
That great, for Tuan and Cwickert. But my problem is that neither
email was sent on the ambassadors list. And, as you say, they are
ambassadors "additional". We need real representant of Ambassadors (I
don't say Tuan ans Cwickert are bad ambassadors)
Elected members of the WG are ones who will *lead* them. Ambassadors are
more than welcome to keep tabs on these working groups and provide them
with feedback when required, like the rest of the community.
Yes, but we need a mentor for this ambassador, to coordinate their
action in the WG.
Ambassadors
generally jump into action in the last stage of a release: when it's
ready, and we need to spread information about it. We don't do much
during rest of the release cycle, with tasks that *create* a release.
As I understand it, this is the order of information flow:
Development/WGs (Develop) -> Marketing/Docs team (Keep tabs + create
collateral: flyers etc.) -> Ambassadors + and the community, in general
(Spread the word) -> rest of the world.
It's for the first release. After, for your product, you need
feedback, and other suggestion, to best help them. The user is the
center of all contributors. So, your order become
Development/WGs (Develop) -> Marketing/Docs team (Keep tabs + create
collateral: flyers etc.) -> Ambassadors + and the community, in
general
(Spread the word) -> rest of the world. -> User ->
Development/WGs
(Develop)....
This last step require ambassadors.
It's similar to what we have now, which is why I keep requesting folks
that aren't developers to help out with marketing/docs, or at least to
keep tabs on their tasks.
That very good. This is why you need ambassadors, for all steps in the
developpement.
Users don't create software. They use it.
That the most
important thing ! Softwares are make to users. If you
exclude user of your process, it's a big mistake
Most users don't know or care
at all about how software is created. In most cases, users are only
involved during the first phase of software development, when
requirements are being collected. The WGs already have their
requirements figured out.
You forget the post-production. After a software, user have some other
idea of improvement.
For example, what would you as a user contribute to the server (or
another) working group?
For example, I'm a user. I want php on my server, but it isn't in the
"server" group on yum. I can tell developpers to add php in their
group.
2013/10/27, Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)gmail.com>:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 12:34:01 +0100
Nobrakal <nobrakal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Then why do Ambassadors "not reply" to emails even from other
Ambassadors, the perception I have been given is that Ambassadors
should not be disturbed. Ankur (FranciscoD), could fill you in more
on this *do not contact" aspect of *some* Ambassadors.
If some ambassadors do not their jobs, it's another problem. I speak
about the 'normal' ambassadors.
It is also important to have them in freemedia,
don't see that happening, too often.
Yes, you're right, but it's another problem. But, now, freemedia isn't
longer required. Live usb is very useful, on my mind.
Alexandre
8:53 a.m.
New subject: Ambassadors places in new Working Groups
On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 14:46 +0100, Nobrakal wrote:
2013/10/27, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com>:
> On Sun, 2013-10-27 at 12:27 +0100, Nobrakal wrote:
>> In my mind, Ambassadors are more near of users than developers or
>> marketing team. Ambassadors organize all the events, submit new
>> idea... It is really important to have at least an ambassador in WG
>
> I don't think Amabssdors must be part of the WGs, unless they also have
> a skill set relevant to the WG. For example, Tuan isn't just an
> ambassador. He works with servers and therefore brings certain knowledge
> that will be useful to the WG.
That great, for Tuan and Cwickert. But my problem is that neither
email was sent on the ambassadors list.
Honestly, if you don't follow up the other lists, then I can't
understand how you can do a good job of representing Fedora.
And really, the working groups are about **making** Fedora. Ambassadors
are about **promoting** it. If you want to be part of those who make
Fedora, then you're not just an ambassador any more, you become one of
the developers. (and then you really should follow the lists where this
was announced)
--
Mathieu
4:16 a.m.
New subject: Ambassadors places in new Working Groups
On 10/27/2013 11:34 AM, Nobrakal wrote:
2013/10/27, Frank Murphy<frankly3d(a)gmail.com>:
> >On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 19:05:37 +0800
> >Christopher Meng<cickumqt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>> >>It seems that most of members from the new formed groups are
>> >>working for Red Hat. Well it's helpful to strengthen our technical
>> >>base but are there any plots for other people?
Well, if I believe this ticket [1]: "Each working group should be
comprised of no more than half (rounded up) of Red Hat employees. This
is to avoid the misconception that Red Hat is dictating the planning
here. "
That a good rule.
That rule did not get approved by fesco quite the opposite + FESCO
members they themselves where supposed to be the ones that selected
initial members for the WG but they did not do so for all groups as in
the Workstation WG initial selection was conducted by Josh Boyer (
former FESCO member,board kernel and what not everybody should know him
) as well as the Base WG was selected by Phil Knirsch, which is entirely
unassociated with fesco afaik but is (co)-maintaining bunch of obsoleted
stuff there in the base/core OS.
JBG
4:18 a.m.
New subject: Ambassadors places in new Working Groups
2013/10/28 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com>
On 10/27/2013 11:34 AM, Nobrakal wrote:
> 2013/10/27, Frank Murphy<frankly3d(a)gmail.com>:
>
>> >On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 19:05:37 +0800
>> >Christopher Meng<cickumqt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>>
>>> >>It seems that most of members from the new formed groups are
>>> >>working for Red Hat. Well it's helpful to strengthen our
technical
>>> >>base but are there any plots for other people?
>>>
>> Well, if I believe this ticket [1]: "Each working group should be
> comprised of no more than half (rounded up) of Red Hat employees. This
> is to avoid the misconception that Red Hat is dictating the planning
> here. "
> That a good rule.
>
>
That rule did not get approved by fesco quite the opposite + FESCO members
they themselves where supposed to be the ones that selected initial members
for the WG but they did not do so for all groups as in the Workstation WG
initial selection was conducted by Josh Boyer ( former FESCO member,board
kernel and what not everybody should know him ) as well as the Base WG was
selected by Phil Knirsch, which is entirely unassociated with fesco afaik
but is (co)-maintaining bunch of obsoleted stuff there in the base/core OS.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/devel<https://admin...
Fedora Code of Conduct:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-**of-conduct<http://fedoraproject.org/co...
4:21 a.m.
New subject: Ambassadors places in new Working Groups
Hi,
Fesco is entitled to delegate their "authority" to anyone they see fit to
do so.
For instance, FPC members are designated by Fesco and rule packaging
guidelines.
Besides, the final decision was taken by Fesco.
H.
6:55 a.m.
New subject: Ambassadors places in new Working Groups
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/27/2013 07:34 AM, Nobrakal wrote:
2013/10/27, Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)gmail.com>:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 19:05:37 +0800 Christopher Meng
> <cickumqt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems that most of members from the new formed groups are
>> working for Red Hat. Well it's helpful to strengthen our
>> technical base but are there any plots for other people?
Well, if I believe this ticket [1]: "Each working group should be
comprised of no more than half (rounded up) of Red Hat employees.
This is to avoid the misconception that Red Hat is dictating the
planning here. " That a good rule.
I suggested that (and in the Server WG I tried to meet it), but the
simple truth was that this was impossible for most of the WGs because
there were fewer than four non-Red Hat self-nominees.
I do think that the other FESCo coordinators attempted to balance the
Red Hat and non-Red Hat voices as best as possible. Certainly, the
nominees are not the only people that can participate in this process.
As I stated for the Server WG, the voting members are only there to
rule on final decisions and resolve disputes. If they are the only
ones working towards these goals, we've failed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlJuULcACgkQeiVVYja6o6NltACggJ51skJh7WES1kPBGEirl9Ky
Yq0Anix7uwpsscd5ofhNfBOsVTuUp9Ye
=xneg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3857
days inactive
3858
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Alexandre Moine -
Frank Murphy -
Haïkel -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Mathieu Bridon -
Stephen Gallagher