https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_strategic_working_group_2010-02-22 == Roll Call == * Attendees: John Poelstra, Paul Frields, Matt Domsch, Colin Walters, Mike McGrath * Regrets: Chris Tyler == Default Distribution Offering == * Owner: Paul Frields * Question being answered: "On what basis do we have a default offering?" * Original page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Different_default_offering * Added page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Current_default_offering * After some discussion group felt Paul should do a little more work on second page explaining: ** why we ended up with the default we did, which combines a number of technologies into a platform: *** GNOME Desktop Environment *** Compiz (not actually a part of GNOME, but prominent in the UI) *** Firefox and other third party apps *** SELinux *** kernel ** Is this due to Red Hat as Fedora's main sponsor? *** In part, because Fedora is driven by contribution, and Red Hat as a Fedora contributor drives a massive amount of free software innovation done directly in the kernel, tools, security, desktop, and elsewhere, and then quickly inherited into Fedora where it can be distributed in consumable form *** R&D lab idea allows anyone to grow technology in Fedora *** But other pieces of the platform are "best of breed FOSS" but not due to Red Hat or Fedora necessarily, e.g. Firefox *** Not just about a desktop environment, but in the future need to give thought to how to design the whole system *** We need to give thought whenever components change; and we have more room available now (> CD size) * '''NEXT ACTIONS:''' ** Paul will do more drafting and post back to Board == Clarifying Issues Around Spins == * Owners: Matt & Colin * Can Spins/SIGS or Fedora remixes define their own target audience? ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Walters/SpinsSigsRemixes_TargetAudience * Can Spins/SIGS or Fedora remixes change the code enough to meet their goals? ** https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Walters/SpinsSigsRemixes_ChangeDistribution * http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2010-February/000996.html * Summary of what Matt has tracked down so far https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mdomsch/SWG_Spins * As part of the research for this this we tried to get a clearer picture of what the Spins SIG is responsibile for. We understand those responsibilities to be: *** Managing the approval process for new spins *** spins pages *** kickstart file is good *** Coordinating Board trademark approval ** Individual spin owners may not participate in the SIG, so will need to reach out to them directly. * Spins pain points raised on this recent thread: ** http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-February/007975.html and following for many messages. These are additional to the questions we asked of them * We still want to make sure that the work of the Spins SIG is not blocked ** Fedora as a project may not be able to provide all necessary resources to every Spin ** Spins are a way for contributors to gather connected communities of contributors, create more awareness and contribution to Fedora ** Community building is primarily a problem of increasing ''people capacity'', not simply working harder *** Build infrastructure capacity, storage space, etc. -- technical blockers are critical path items *** Enable easy processes (TM licensing/approvals, etc.) to help contributors without inducing mass chaos **** alternately, '''do''' allow mass chaos where appropriate (Fedora Remix) *** Make it easier for contributors to help anywhere they want -- lower barriers so that anyone can build the actual workforce in the Fedora Project * '''NEXT STEPS''': ** Matt to email each of the spin owners with the original questions posed to the Spins SIG == Next Meeting == * March 1, 2010 @ 3 PM EST * Discussion topics: ** Follow-up to Matt and Colin's work on Spins _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
