Hello Max It is with some irony that I follow the link to the LWN article below only to find that it is _closed_ to (unpaid) non-subscribers. I was about to draw attention to this irony with a short and curt message to the LWN editor, but thought it better I somehow access the material in discussion first - can you provide a link to an _open_ copy of the article please? Perhaps a follow-up on announce list? Regards, Morgan. Max Spevack wrote: > My fellow Fedorans, > > I have some thoughts on the LWN article/discussion that was taken from a > few of the recent postings to fedora-advisory-board. > > Rather than send the same message to a bunch of different Fedora lists, > I'm just going to spit it out here on fedora-announce-list. > > http://lwn.net/Articles/203694/ > > All of the "interesting" threads about Fedora that we've seen on LWN > tend to begin with one of the LWN editors browsing the Fedora Advisory > Board archives and commenting on some of the discussions that take place > there. > > It's not like that's an accident. > > When we set up that mailing list, we said two very specific things: > > 1) This is *the list* where the controversial conversations about Fedora > will take place. > > 2) This list is completely open. Anyone can read it. Anyone can post > to it. And we hope that people will! > > I'm glad people are reading it. I'm glad people *care* enough about the > issues that are discussed on it to write a large number of comments to a > story about Fedora. > > So the *particulars* of this thread about Fedora metrics to me are *less > important* than the fact that these conversations -- in their raw, > unedited form -- are being had 100% in the open. And that they are > being had in very large part by people who do not work for Red Hat. And > that people who don't work for Red Hat are making decisions about Fedora > policy that are then implemented. > > That was the goal of the Fedora Board, and the Fedora Advisory Board. > And it's working. > > Seth Vidal and Dave Jones summed it up well in the comments on LWN. > There was an idea. That idea was discussed in public. It received > criticism, others were proposed, options were weighed, and a decision > was made. That's how it's supposed to work. > > So what's the purpose of taking parts of that conversation and sticking > them on a news site like LWN? > > Is it to: > > A) be critical of the *initial idea* and made Fedora look foolish for > having thought of it to begin with? > > B) be a case study of "the lifecycle of a controversial decision in > Fedora"? > > C) *incorrectly* imply that Red Hat might want to cut funding for Fedora? > > D) demonstrate a problem with Fedora (lack of strong metrics) and show > some of the conversations around that problem? > > The Fedora Advisory Board list is made up of all sorts of different > types -- engineers both inside and outside of Red Hat, lawyers, > marketing experts, folks who are considering business issues, folks who > are considering technical issues, etc. > > When the ideas of one group come up against the scrutiny of other > groups, it isn't always pretty. > > But the *end result* is what matters. And since we inaugurated the > Fedora Board in April, I think the Fedora Project has a solid track > record of doing the "right thing" in the end. > > The fact that the rest of the process is transparent should, in my > opinion, be held up as a good thing. > > It is a side effect that looking into that process can occasionally lead > to a fun comment/flame thread. Laugh at us if you want to. Flame us if > you want to. We're still going to talk about it in the open, because as > an organization the Fedora Project is committed to that transparency, > even when it isn't necessarily the *easiest* choice. > > So please, judge us based on what we actually DO, not just what we talk > about and then throw away. > > --Max > > P.S. RED HAT IS NOT GOING TO CUT FUNDING FOR FEDORA! Quite the > opposite, in fact. But I can't just walk into the magic room full of > gold and take a pile of it. There has to be justification. There has > to be a Plan. It has to be treated like Serious Business(TM). :-) And > I think that any product (free or otherwise) that can't at least give a > ballpark guesstimate of how many people use it is going to have some > problems being taken seriously. > -- Morgan Read NEW ZEALAND <mailto:mstuffATreadDOTorgDOTnz> fedora: Freedom Forever! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview "By choosing not to ship any proprietary or binary drivers, Fedora does differ from other distributions. ..." Quote: Max Spevik http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/17/177220
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
