2013/10/7 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg(a)gmail.com>
Or people turn a blind eye to the facts on what's actually taking place.
- It places distrust in the community ( as came completely clear on last
FESCO meeting )
Fesco members are all elected by contributors (no nominated members by Red
Hat), if you think they doesn't do their job properly, you're more than
capable to step up at the next election.
- It puts the community to disadvantage compare to it employees which
as stepped up to the level that community members are subjected to
character and social scrutiny by FESCO ( look at Dan's pp request 3
meetings ago ) while Red Hat employees entirely bypass that and other (
privileged ) processes that community members have to go through.
I don't remember being employed by Red Hat, neither are the other members
who were worried that FESCo rushed that pp request.
You're completely rewriting history here, because, FESCo approved this pp
request without respecting its own guidelines, many voices from the
community had intervened to restore legality here.
This incident was handled by community sponsors in respect to the process
defined by the community, not by Red Hat employees.
- It elevates it's own "product(s)" above
community's work either under
the so called "defaults" ( or as we are heading now "3 products" )
various strategically placed "recommendations" here and there putting
competing community maintained products at disadvantage.
One of Fedora's biggest success was to build a strong community that
spear-headed the GNU/Linux efforts for years. But we're reaching our own
limits and we have to set clear goals to keep this community together.
By defining three products (and people are free to propose other products,
it's a truly community-driven process), we are setting these goals that
will make Fedora works in the future.
- It creates ( high ranking ) positions ( suddenly ) in communities,
recruits individuals outside the community and places them in those
positions and in those communities ( people can just look through the
internet archive's for advertised Fedora positions both for the title they
give these individuals as well as the statement you will be working as as
opposed to working with ).
I consider the whole Red Hat as a particular contributor, i don't give a
rat's ass about anyone position (community manager, cloud architect or
whatever). What i consider is the work done by individuals.
Off course, Red Hat wants to drive Fedora where are their own interests,
but they have as much power as their contributions are worth to the
I'm not supporting Matthew's proposal because he works at Red Hat but as
fellow contributor who did a great job.
So as you can see it already is behaving as I think it behaves and
frankly this is an disgusting and unjust corporate behavior towards the
community based on mistrust and misuse and sends mixed signals inside and
outside of our community and labels our work as some kind of RH experiment
and test bed.
As you, i still resent what Brian Steven said about Fedora being only RHEL
sandbox, but we have to keep our heads cool.
You have valid arguments (mixed signals sent to the community for
instance), please, don't mix everything with unfair arguments.
All of the issues I have mentioned here before can be dealt with
internally by Red Hat.
- It has to take a leap of faith and just let go and place trust in the
community since it's highly unlikely that it will venture to far away from
Red Hat interest at least I would be very surprised if it did.
I'm pretty sure that most RH employees involved in Fedora are thinking the
- If it thinks that our processes are to complex for an new employee
walk through to gain the necessary access to be able to perform it's work,
it needs to work with us improving those processes and workflows so that
*everybody* Red Hat employees and community members alike will gain from it
as opposed to be bypassing it altogether for it's employee while the
community drowns in bureaucracy.
- It will need to understand that forcing everything under a single
product ( default ) or three products as well as single audience ( or three
different audience ) hinders growth in sub communities ( due to them not
being equally presented ) as well as fair competition thus innovation
between competing products applications or applications stack ( be it
through better written code/compatibility/features/**maintenance you know
those little things that competing products implement or achieve over each
other ) .
You're being unfair, this decision has been discussed in the open and has
been approved by a fully community process, you were THERE at Flock when we
discussed this face to face.
- It needs to understand that there is no need to invent ( high
position and try to elevate new employees to those positions within sub
community since it will come naturally on it's own by the share time that
employees has to work and dedicate to the sub community surrounding the
component or group of components. ( An community member only has around 2 -
4 hours max each day to dedicate to the project unless he's unemployed or
is being paid to work in it ).
People hired at these "high ranking" positions have as much influence as
our community wants to give them. Matthew is no exception.
As long as Red Hat doesn't interfere in our community defined process as a
corporate beast, i'm glad that there are people who are paid working on
Fedora because i don't have as much time as i wish i could give to *OUR*
So fourth and so on,
Red Hat has pretty smart managers and team leaders within their ranks
which I'm pretty sure will straight these issues out and deal with the
community on equal ground and in harmony which benefits us all.
devel mailing list
Fedora Code of Conduct:
This is a gesture of good faith, and i think that you're only worried for
our (aka community) best interests