We need to discuss our new plans going forward for the Fedora Server Edition. Fedora has started adopting the Kellogg Logic Model[1] for planning purposes. At this year's Flock in Kraków, Poland, we started this process with the people who were present.
I put together a Kanban board[2] as an imperfect visualization of this discussion so we can use that. In a proper visualization of the model, all of the cards would have arrows pointing to the column to their right to indicate which card they were implementing.
I'd like to continue this exercise with the larger Server SIG audience on this mailing list. We will go through five unique phases, each corresponding to the five columns in the Kellogg Logic Model from right to left (so we will start at the rightmost column, "Impact" and then proceed through "Outcomes", "Outputs", "Activities", and "Resources in order).
This thread will begin with "Impact". In the Kellogg Logic Model, this is the high-level change we want to effect in the world. An analogue to this in our original PRD would be our Mission and Vision statements.
At Flock, we summarized (and shortened) the Vision and Mission as follows:
* Vision: Admins default to choosing Fedora Server as a deployment platform for apps and services * Mission: Produce common base and server roles (best practices in a can)
So let's start by discussing these. Do we like these as our long-term end goals? Should they be more specific or more vague?
[1] https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundati...
[2] https://taiga.fedorainfracloud.org/project/sgallagh-fedora-server-planning-f...
On 23 August 2016 at 12:14, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
We need to discuss our new plans going forward for the Fedora Server Edition. Fedora has started adopting the Kellogg Logic Model[1] for planning purposes. At this year's Flock in Kraków, Poland, we started this process with the people who were present.
For those of us who aren't familiar with a Kellog Logic model are there other resources available explaining them that don't require a name and login to get to? I kind of understand what is going on but these things usually have particular language definitons which if not everyone knows ends up with arguments over minutae. [Like the fact that Logic does not mean philosophical or computer logic but some completely other meaning]
I found this http://toolkit.pellinstitute.org/evaluation-guide/plan-budget/using-a-logic-... but I don;'t know if that covers what we are trying to do or what we are trying to accomplish
I also found http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/overview/models-for-community-health-...
I went through my email and could not find any other mentions of Kellogg logic so if this is discussed elsewhere already my apologies.
I put together a Kanban board[2] as an imperfect visualization of this discussion so we can use that. In a proper visualization of the model, all of the cards would have arrows pointing to the column to their right to indicate which card they were implementing.
I'd like to continue this exercise with the larger Server SIG audience on this mailing list. We will go through five unique phases, each corresponding to the five columns in the Kellogg Logic Model from right to left (so we will start at the rightmost column, "Impact" and then proceed through "Outcomes", "Outputs", "Activities", and "Resources in order).
This thread will begin with "Impact". In the Kellogg Logic Model, this is the high-level change we want to effect in the world. An analogue to this in our original PRD would be our Mission and Vision statements.
At Flock, we summarized (and shortened) the Vision and Mission as follows:
- Vision: Admins default to choosing Fedora Server as a deployment platform for
apps and services
- Mission: Produce common base and server roles (best practices in a can)
So let's start by discussing these. Do we like these as our long-term end goals? Should they be more specific or more vague?
[1] https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundati...
[2] https://taiga.fedorainfracloud.org/project/sgallagh-fedora-server-planning-f...
server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:30:05PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
For those of us who aren't familiar with a Kellog Logic model are there other resources available explaining them that don't require a name and login to get to? I kind of understand what is going on but these things usually have particular language definitons which if not everyone knows ends up with arguments over minutae. [Like the fact that Logic does not mean philosophical or computer logic but some completely other meaning]
Looks like my talk at Flock didn't get recorded properly. I did a blog post a little while back — https://fedoramagazine.org/lets-talk-about-fedora-project-objectives/
It's basically a planning tool which helps one articulate the resources and activities needed to reach a particular goal. It's nice because it can be read in either direction: you can go from a high-level mission statement and see it as a breakdown of what it'll take to get there. Or, you can look at your inputs and see their logical connection to the goal.
"Logic" here is somewhat similar in meaning to computer logic — not boolean arithmetic, but a series of "iff-then" statements.
You can see a practical example here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization,_Prototype_P...
On 08/23/2016 12:14 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
We need to discuss our new plans going forward for the Fedora Server Edition. Fedora has started adopting the Kellogg Logic Model[1] for planning purposes. At this year's Flock in Kraków, Poland, we started this process with the people who were present.
I put together a Kanban board[2] as an imperfect visualization of this discussion so we can use that. In a proper visualization of the model, all of the cards would have arrows pointing to the column to their right to indicate which card they were implementing.
I'd like to continue this exercise with the larger Server SIG audience on this mailing list. We will go through five unique phases, each corresponding to the five columns in the Kellogg Logic Model from right to left (so we will start at the rightmost column, "Impact" and then proceed through "Outcomes", "Outputs", "Activities", and "Resources in order).
This thread will begin with "Impact". In the Kellogg Logic Model, this is the high-level change we want to effect in the world. An analogue to this in our original PRD would be our Mission and Vision statements.
At Flock, we summarized (and shortened) the Vision and Mission as follows:
- Vision: Admins default to choosing Fedora Server as a deployment platform for
apps and services
- Mission: Produce common base and server roles (best practices in a can)
So let's start by discussing these. Do we like these as our long-term end goals? Should they be more specific or more vague?
[1] https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundati...
[2] https://taiga.fedorainfracloud.org/project/sgallagh-fedora-server-planning-f...
Sorry folks, I meant to send a follow-up about this last Wednesday and it completely slipped my mind. We had a very lively discussion at the last meeting as we tried to decide on a Vision Statement for the Server Edition.
I won't attempt to recreate the complete discussion here (the logs are available[1] if you want to read through them). I'll summarize approximately where we left off though.
We were attempting to work from this draft:
"Anyone should be able to confidently obtain, configure and deploy software services that address their needs using readily-available and trustworthy recipes."
There was concern that this is too long. Stephen Smoogen noted that it wouldn't fit within a tweet, which is *probably* a decent metric for a sound-bite like this needs to be.
A number of attempts were made to shorten it up a little, but as Vinny pointed out, we were rapidly approaching "Anyone should address their needs" levels of vagueness.
For the most part, people seemed generally in favor of the message this was offering, so now we're basically down to painting the bikeshed of the exact wording. Help welcome from all corners.
We should also start working on the Mission Statement in parallel. Where a Vision is "a declaration of an organization's objectives, ideally based on economic foresight, intended to guide its internal decision-making.", a Mission is "a statement which is used as a way of communicating the purpose of the organization." So our Vision shows us the change we want to see in the world and our Mission should describe what the purpose of Server Edition is in accomplishing that.
Our previous mission statement does not really accomplish that in any meaningful way: "Fedora Server is a common base platform with "featured server roles" built on top of it. We commit to produce, test, and distribute these server roles."
I'd like to suggest a starting point (or straw-man, if you prefer):
Fedora Server's Mission is "To be the platform of innovation for building the services of the next era in computing."
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-08-30/serversig.2016...
On 6 September 2016 at 10:00, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/23/2016 12:14 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
We need to discuss our new plans going forward for the Fedora Server Edition. Fedora has started adopting the Kellogg Logic Model[1] for planning purposes. At this year's Flock in Kraków, Poland, we started this process with the people who were present.
I put together a Kanban board[2] as an imperfect visualization of this discussion so we can use that. In a proper visualization of the model, all of the cards would have arrows pointing to the column to their right to indicate which card they were implementing.
I'd like to continue this exercise with the larger Server SIG audience on this mailing list. We will go through five unique phases, each corresponding to the five columns in the Kellogg Logic Model from right to left (so we will start at the rightmost column, "Impact" and then proceed through "Outcomes", "Outputs", "Activities", and "Resources in order).
This thread will begin with "Impact". In the Kellogg Logic Model, this is the high-level change we want to effect in the world. An analogue to this in our original PRD would be our Mission and Vision statements.
At Flock, we summarized (and shortened) the Vision and Mission as follows:
- Vision: Admins default to choosing Fedora Server as a deployment platform for
apps and services
- Mission: Produce common base and server roles (best practices in a can)
So let's start by discussing these. Do we like these as our long-term end goals? Should they be more specific or more vague?
[1] https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundati...
[2] https://taiga.fedorainfracloud.org/project/sgallagh-fedora-server-planning-f...
Sorry folks, I meant to send a follow-up about this last Wednesday and it completely slipped my mind. We had a very lively discussion at the last meeting as we tried to decide on a Vision Statement for the Server Edition.
I won't attempt to recreate the complete discussion here (the logs are available[1] if you want to read through them). I'll summarize approximately where we left off though.
We were attempting to work from this draft:
"Anyone should be able to confidently obtain, configure and deploy software services that address their needs using readily-available and trustworthy recipes."
There was concern that this is too long. Stephen Smoogen noted that it wouldn't fit within a tweet, which is *probably* a decent metric for a sound-bite like this needs to be.
A number of attempts were made to shorten it up a little, but as Vinny pointed out, we were rapidly approaching "Anyone should address their needs" levels of vagueness.
For the most part, people seemed generally in favor of the message this was offering, so now we're basically down to painting the bikeshed of the exact wording. Help welcome from all corners.
We should also start working on the Mission Statement in parallel. Where a Vision is "a declaration of an organization's objectives, ideally based on economic foresight, intended to guide its internal decision-making.", a Mission is "a statement which is used as a way of communicating the purpose of the organization." So our Vision shows us the change we want to see in the world and our Mission should describe what the purpose of Server Edition is in accomplishing that.
Our previous mission statement does not really accomplish that in any meaningful way: "Fedora Server is a common base platform with "featured server roles" built on top of it. We commit to produce, test, and distribute these server roles."
I'd like to suggest a starting point (or straw-man, if you prefer):
Fedora Server's Mission is "To be the platform of innovation for building the services of the next era in computing."
I have a hard time seeing the difference between most mission and vision statements. The previous mission statement seemed something that could be clearly accomplished and measured against. The straw man seems to be something that could both always be met and never be met. [My autistic filters are very high today so if I am seeing something obvious I apologize.] Here is my straw man which I can better parse but realize it needs a lot of work or can be thrown away.
Fedora Server is the common base platform for tested service roles meeting the needs of old and cutting edge computing.
The goal of this is to say that we realize that our customer base for services are wanting things that fit older technologies but also cutting edge paradigms. They may want a print server (old technology) but working with newer style printers and configurations (docker for some reason) that a slower enterprise Linux isn't hitting. They may want an email server but also a microservice controller for IOT devices.
On 09/06/2016 10:24 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I have a hard time seeing the difference between most mission and vision statements. The previous mission statement seemed something that could be clearly accomplished and measured against. The straw man
That's fair. As I said, it was a Straw Man (something we could start from and get into shape).
seems to be something that could both always be met and never be met. [My autistic filters are very high today so if I am seeing something obvious I apologize.] Here is my straw man which I can better parse but realize it needs a lot of work or can be thrown away.
Fedora Server is the common base platform for tested service roles meeting the needs of old and cutting edge computing.
One thing I feel like this is missing is that part of our mission is to collaboratively develop this solution as well. I don't want to lose that distinction.
Maybe something like
"Fedora Server Edition provides a platform for the creation and deployment of assured service roles meeting the needs of both traditional and leading-edge computing."
(Yes, that is a mouthful...)
The goal of this is to say that we realize that our customer base for services are wanting things that fit older technologies but also cutting edge paradigms. They may want a print server (old technology) but working with newer style printers and configurations (docker for some reason) that a slower enterprise Linux isn't hitting. They may want an email server but also a microservice controller for IOT devices.
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Matthew Miller -
Stephen Gallagher -
Stephen John Smoogen