Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Mike McGrath <mmcgrath <at> redhat.com>
Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2010-04-15 UTC 1600
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.advisory-board
Date: Thursday 15th April 2010 17:26:18 UTC (over 7 years ago)
Present: Chris Tyler, Colin Walters, John Poelstra, Tom Callaway, Paul
Frields, Dennis Gilmore, Mike McGrath, Christopher Aillon
Regrets: Matt Domsch, Josh Boyer
Assigned meeting secretary: Mike McGrath

== Agenda ==

=== SWG close out ===
John
* STATUS: Summary of work is on wiki, the SWG has completed all the
unfinished issues it was assigned.
* Feedback
* QUESTION: Does the Board agree that the SWG has completed all its
assigned work?  If not, what specific topic do you feel is unfinished
that the SWG was assigned?
* Based on above, action to dissolve SWG
* 15 min
* Schedule conflict caused Mondays meeting to be skipped
* Generally the board feels there are no more open questions
** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Unfinished_Board_issues
* Retrospective:
** Colin: smaller group of people led to good discussion and clarification
on what certain people believed
** Chris: The format was one that worked well; successfully accomplished
goal of bringing some long-standing topics to conclusion. definitely
consider for future issues
** Paul: The feeling of not just one but two groups depending on output
made us feel more accountable
** Paul: Being able to talk at length about small specific issues during
the SWG meetings worked well while not weighing down the board meetings.
** Mike: seemed that we were "too designed" by committee... we answered
the questions, but not sure what good will come from it.  Not sure that
the outcome is a clear message or focus.  The project doesn't feel any
different today then it did before the SWG met.
** ChrisA:  It is good we answered the questions people were asking.
Going forward it might be better to focus on "What do we want the
experience to be vs. who do we want it to be for."  Now we need to start
answering our own questions and help lead the project in the future.  The
questions were being answered.
** Paul: The board should now be advocating these changes.
** John: It makes a lot of sense to wrap up the group of topics this SWG
had within the bounds of my board term (which ends soon).  It may make a
lot of sense to form a "New SWG" to tackle a new group of issues that are
"future facing".  Most of the topics this SWG tackled seemed to be about
the past and the present.  This could provide a good foundation for
"future" work.
** Colin: We did approach the how, not just the who.
** Paul: We have some pages that do lay out how now.
** Mike: Now that we have this foundation, what do we do next? Does the
board become more "activist?"
** John: Perhaps the board should start looking at a broader vision.
These are highly complex topics to discuss even the extra hour a week to
talk didn't feel like enough.  This work is time consuming.
** Paul: It was clear why some of these questions have been floating
around for years that had not been fully answered.  There is consensus in
this group instead of taking a dictatorial process.  We should be
following up with the different groups (for example FESCo's update policy)
** Paul + John: We should be working with the groups to understand
realistic expectations for how long certain things will take vs. mandate
they be done by a certain date.
** Spot: logical progression of SWG, "what are we doing to make things
better for the User Base?"
** Paul: Should we bring in team leads from the various groups to see what
their team is doing to match our goals.
** Mike: We shouldn't come up with goals for the teams unless the teams
aren't coming up with their own goals.
** Paul: Agree, maybe convert to an additional IRC meeting where we meet
with the teams and work with them directly about what they're working on,
how do they need help, what can the board do to help, get resources, etc.
Try and get agreement between what they're doing and broad vision.
*** John: "Help us help you."
** Spot: We should look at FESCo being the technical shapers of a release.
If we want the board to be more activist, we should focus on big picture
visions, spanning multiple releases. For example having a better
experience for updates but letting FESCo actually do that work.
** The board generally agrees we're done with this particular topic though
some are wondering "What's next?"

NEXT ACTIONS:
1) (Paul) Suggest rotating team meetings to:
	* stay informed on major initiatives of teams
	** Meet with team leaders
	* figure out how the Board can help either increase visibility or
get specific people focused on helping (if applicable)
	* make this alternating weeks from phone meetings
2) Big picture vision proposals targeted at user base
	* create theme for next set of releases beyond the pending/next
	** decide on vision timeframe, e.g., next N releases
	* example - Driving update experience starting from update vision
	* Moving from written policy to answering, "How are we making
things better for the user base?"
3) Make sure all contributors know about FAB and know what it's for
	* Discussion of high-level issues
	* Input on Board issues
	* Paul - retrieve number of subscribers for info

=== Beta Release ===
* Paul:
** Thanks to everyone!
** Is well viewed in the press and by user feedback I've heard, by and
large
** I'd like to see more outreach by board members for a release.
** Blog and be more outspoken about the good things they see happening
around each release

== Next Meeting Topics ==
* Any items for next meeting?
** Status of MeeGo
** Team meetings -- see above
** Vision proposals -- see above
*** Are there any to work on?  If not, brainstorming session and assign
topic
** FAB visibility -- see above

== Next meeting ==
* Wed 2010-04-22 UTC 1600
 
CD: 3ms