On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I suppose you'll agree that logos of sponsors do not equate to statutes.
As an NPR, Fedora Europe/Middle-East/Africa might have statutes, but it doesn't give Fedora any.
> CentOS and Scientific Linux are separate entities from
> Red Hat, not Fedora.
>
> Maybe this should be made clearer so that developers understand what kind
> of project they're involved in. There are advantages working for a major
> Linux distribution such as Red Hat. Are there enough, I don't know. This
> is a question I raise in the case study I'm about to submit.
OK. So, you're not working for Fedora, you're contributing work to Fedora. Call it the way you want, it might soon prove difficult to find "work contributors".
People who contribute applications to Apple's iPhone receive 80¢ per download. If the application is downloaded 1,250,000 times, they make a million. A rare occurence, no doubt, but some developers probably make ~$50,000/year. Whatever the case may be, there's a certain rule that is clearly established. Either you play the game, or you don't but, depending on your capacities as a programmer, you may ambition to earn your life this way, right from the onset. Then, if company X wants to employ you, they'll have to pay accordingly.
Google is already playing this game and will play it more when their netbook with ChromeOS is introduced on the market. Soon, Intel/Nokia will join the bandwagon and even Shuttleworth, with his tiny billion, is also at it with Ubuntu One.
This will give these companies an occasion to see how developers are appreciated in the real world. The developers' names will be more closely identified to the product than is presently the case in the free software world. (And all of this might eventually prove to work better with the BSD license than the GPL license, but that's another story.)
So with a system where the management is calling the shots -- I'll pay you or I won't -- as presently is the case at Red Hat, the least you can say is that developers might not flood to the gates.
Developers' job is easy fairly easy to evaluate. You find or you don't find the button; you click it, it works or it doesn't. But what about management? How can developers evaluate management? When a software company such as Red Hat, has been in business for some time, there should be enough money to pay a fair amount to developers.
I'm not saying that RH is doing everything wrong but, how is this evaluated at the right now? Sometimes, management gets lazy and, if they can keep the money to themselves, why would they give developers their fair share? As I noted earlier, a certtain former CEO certainly didn't give the developers what they deserved. How can developers be confident that this is not still happening, though to a lesser degree?
Though Red Hat is doing fine now, I believe it would be better off questioning its development model before problems arise. By then, it's usually too late to fix them. That's not how business work.
> It's not time to discuss this here but I certainly believe that
> developers' contribution should be more fully acknowledged, and I mean
> this not only in an abstract manner. For the unrest to cease -- because
> there is some unrest -- the relation between development and management
> will have to evolve, just to make sure that it's impossible from now on
> for a CEO and his wife to run away with hundreds of millions $, leaving
> developers sixpence none the richer(1).
>
> (1) Of course, this is now impossible, but a sense of balance must still
> be established.
As I said, "It's not time to discuss this here". Not yet. If all of Red Hat thinks there's no problem, it's definitely no use for me to work alone and try to come up with solutions, right? Mainly that the solution is the part that will need the most work and that, tomorrow, we'll have incredibly nice weather, here. (10° C higher than past record temperature.)
So, I'll certainly take a bike ride instead of writing and see if anybody here can figure out what I'm talking about, I mean enough to show some support, come up with something. You know, contribute.
Sorry I can't answer the others posts now. Time to sleep.
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:23:48PM -0400, Marcel Rieux wrote:> bench for RHEL.
> As a matter of fact, as Fedora is mainly financed by Red Hat as a test
Fedora is more than a test bench for RHEL.
Legally, Fedora (the trademark) is owned by Red Hat, and the Fedora
> I can hardly see how Fedora could stand as "a completely
> separate entity".
Project Board is given the authority to manage it. Red Hat is also
the largest (but by no means the only) Fedora sponsor.
http://fedoraproject.org/sponsors
I suppose you'll agree that logos of sponsors do not equate to statutes.
The Fedora EMEA
As an NPR, Fedora Europe/Middle-East/Africa might have statutes, but it doesn't give Fedora any.
> CentOS and Scientific Linux are separate entities from
> Red Hat, not Fedora.
>
> Maybe this should be made clearer so that developers understand what kind
> of project they're involved in. There are advantages working for a major
> Linux distribution such as Red Hat. Are there enough, I don't know. This
> is a question I raise in the case study I'm about to submit.
Unless you receive a paycheck directly from Red Hat as an employee,
you are not "working for a major Linux distribution" when you
contribute to Fedora. You are contributing to Fedora
OK. So, you're not working for Fedora, you're contributing work to Fedora. Call it the way you want, it might soon prove difficult to find "work contributors".
People who contribute applications to Apple's iPhone receive 80¢ per download. If the application is downloaded 1,250,000 times, they make a million. A rare occurence, no doubt, but some developers probably make ~$50,000/year. Whatever the case may be, there's a certain rule that is clearly established. Either you play the game, or you don't but, depending on your capacities as a programmer, you may ambition to earn your life this way, right from the onset. Then, if company X wants to employ you, they'll have to pay accordingly.
Google is already playing this game and will play it more when their netbook with ChromeOS is introduced on the market. Soon, Intel/Nokia will join the bandwagon and even Shuttleworth, with his tiny billion, is also at it with Ubuntu One.
This will give these companies an occasion to see how developers are appreciated in the real world. The developers' names will be more closely identified to the product than is presently the case in the free software world. (And all of this might eventually prove to work better with the BSD license than the GPL license, but that's another story.)
So with a system where the management is calling the shots -- I'll pay you or I won't -- as presently is the case at Red Hat, the least you can say is that developers might not flood to the gates.
Developers' job is easy fairly easy to evaluate. You find or you don't find the button; you click it, it works or it doesn't. But what about management? How can developers evaluate management? When a software company such as Red Hat, has been in business for some time, there should be enough money to pay a fair amount to developers.
I'm not saying that RH is doing everything wrong but, how is this evaluated at the right now? Sometimes, management gets lazy and, if they can keep the money to themselves, why would they give developers their fair share? As I noted earlier, a certtain former CEO certainly didn't give the developers what they deserved. How can developers be confident that this is not still happening, though to a lesser degree?
Though Red Hat is doing fine now, I believe it would be better off questioning its development model before problems arise. By then, it's usually too late to fix them. That's not how business work.
> It's not time to discuss this here but I certainly believe that
> developers' contribution should be more fully acknowledged, and I mean
> this not only in an abstract manner. For the unrest to cease -- because
> there is some unrest -- the relation between development and management
> will have to evolve, just to make sure that it's impossible from now on
> for a CEO and his wife to run away with hundreds of millions $, leaving
> developers sixpence none the richer(1).
>
> (1) Of course, this is now impossible, but a sense of balance must still
> be established.
What are you proposing, exactly?
As I said, "It's not time to discuss this here". Not yet. If all of Red Hat thinks there's no problem, it's definitely no use for me to work alone and try to come up with solutions, right? Mainly that the solution is the part that will need the most work and that, tomorrow, we'll have incredibly nice weather, here. (10° C higher than past record temperature.)
So, I'll certainly take a bike ride instead of writing and see if anybody here can figure out what I'm talking about, I mean enough to show some support, come up with something. You know, contribute.
Sorry I can't answer the others posts now. Time to sleep.
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
