On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:21:15AM -0500, Ray Strode wrote:
> I think this is a pretty good starting point for our development
> direction, and sets the stage for us making positive progress in the
> new working group model.
> I do think we should keep it open to tweaks in the future as things
> play out, (at the discretion of the 9 members on the working group).
> In other words, I think it lays a solid outline for enabling us all
> to know which direction to go, but i want to make sure if it doesn't
> ever "get in the way". The working group should treat it as a living
> document that gets updated as necessary to reflect changes in the
Agreed, it's a good start. One question...
> > Case 2: Independent Developer
> > Personal development system for an independent software developer doing
> > contract work or developing apps for a new opportunity.
> > Desktop Apps: Up to date desktop with email client, browser, productivity
> > suite, messaging, and complete set of desktop apps and utilities. Desktop
> > apps should be sufficient to make this system the developer's only computer.
> s/and complete/and a complete/
> s/make this/make this/
> [... snip other use cases that sound good ...]
> > Other users
> > While the developer workstation is the main target of this system and what we
> > try to design this for, we do of course also welcome other users to the
> > Fedora Workstation. In fact many of the changes and improvements we expect to
> > implement for developers will be equally beneficial to other user segments,
> I think this is a really important point. Developers are users, too,
> just trying
> to get their work done. We should make sure the OS doesn't get in the way, and
> that it doesn't enforce artificial barriers to entry. Just because a user may
> know how the sausage is made, doesn't mean we should make them stuff their own
> (so to speak). And if a user/developer doesn't know the inner workings of
> Fedora, that's okay, too. We should be enabling the user to get the things
> done he/she cares about, not forcing them to learn the things we care about.
> There should be no "You must be this tall to ride Fedora Workstation" signs.
Is it the intent that the developer cases here completely subsume the
case of a developer who is working primarily on Fedora itself
(including the Worsktation)? Perhaps we should call that out to
correctly prioritize integration of the various developer tools
currently available or planned for the Workstation.
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Ray Strode <halfline(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> The other positions will be filled by general election
>> every two years. As a special exception, four seats will be filled in
>> one year, with those positions chosen at random (unless some number of
>> members decide to step down). Voting will follow the standard Fedora
>> election process and be open to all contributors in the CLA+1 group.
>> In the event that a current member relinquishes their seat, that seat
>> will be filled by the first runner up in the previous election. If
>> that person is not able or willing to fill the seat, it will go to
>> each successive runner up until the seat is filled.
> I think, I personally, would rather see the previous working group
> decide new members of the working group. They're the ones doing the
> work, so they should get the most say in the direction the work goes.
> (the whole "fedora is a meritocracy not a democracy" thing).
> Put another way: I don't think someone who works on desktop related
> software should have much say in who gets to be put in the cloud
> working group, or vice-versa.
> Let the people already doing the work decide the continuing direction
> of the work.
> If things really get off course, fesco can intervene, but I don't
> think that will happen.
Fair. To be honest, the more I think about it the more I dislike the
idea of doing full blown elections. They seem overkill and cumbersome
when it comes to coordinating, etc.
In your opinion, should we have term limits imposed to ensure we have
fresh members coming into the WG? As I said in another email, I think
we should shoot for some continuity while also encouraging new members
to step up.