Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: John Poelstra <poelstra <at> redhat.com>
Subject: Board SWG Meeting 2010-02-22 Recap
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.advisory-board
Date: Tuesday 23rd February 2010 00:43:37 UTC (over 7 years ago)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/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
 
CD: 19ms