On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 10:53 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > 2010/7/23 Máirín Duffy <duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > I'm clearly quite biased but I trust Red Hat a lot more than I trust
> > > Google, as Google has done several things to me personally to completely
> > > lose my trust while Red Hat goes out of its way to do things the right
> > > way.
> >
> > I don't disagree with you. I'm biased too. But we can't build a policy
> > that encodes..bias. We have to build a policy that puts vendors on an
> > equal footing.
>
> Do we really?
>
> If I need a cake for a party, and my mom is a baker, is it really cool
> to put her work on equal footing with other bakers in the area? When,
> you know, I wouldn't be alive without her? And she'll bake my cake for
> free?
>
We need it because otherwise people will be asking for stuff (and they
have) and it'll pretty much just be me saying yes or no arbitrarly. With
an articulate policy in place they can help find the answer before asking.
> I think impartiality here is a myth. Red Hat is part of Fedora's family.
> I feel that if you try to encode equality between Red Hat and some
> random vendor into policy, you're going to fail so why bother?
>
With bugzilla, if RH for whatever reason decided to dump it. I feel
fairly confident we could have a functional replacement in place pretty
quickly (remember pkgdb actually ties in to bugzilla for various things).
So the trick is finding a policy that lets that use case work, but a
closed dep (which I think is too risky for us) to be disallowed. RH or
not I think we can have a reasonable policy in place.
> > We can still have meta arguments and make judgement
> > calls about choosing particular vendors based on track record. I
> > certainly don't intend to take intrastructure's or the board's power
> > to say we trust vendor X over vendor Y because a track record of
> > performance or unquantifiable on a case by case basis.
> >
> > But in the scope of this discussion about crafting policy we need to
> > treat all vendors..neutrally to be credible. Red Hat can't be thought
> > of as exceptional in the lens of policy on external service providers.
>
> Why not?
>
> I think any service provider that is part of Fedora's family and
> supports Fedora should be considered over other vendors. E.g., we have
> various hosting sponsors for our website that we have rotating banner
> ads for. Certainly I'd like to see us supporting those businesses over
> say Google.
>
I don't think people would disagree with that. As long as that 'family'
meets the guidelines we're trying to put forth I'd think that's a
reasonable request as long as some other non-family member doesn't blow it
out of the water in terms of functionality, price, etc. We don't have any
paid services yet but that's not out of the question. Just haven't needed
it yet. (Just thought I'd mention that). But yes, the Fedora family
should come into consideration when deciding services.
> > If anything we have to continually hold Red Hat to a more exacting
> > standard as a hedge against bias with the knowledge and the trust that
> > Red Hat is committed to meeting the standard of performance this
> > project puts forward.
>
> Why?
>
I think I hold RH to a higher standard then most companies. I did before
I started working here and I do even more so now. I just think RH's a
different kind of company then most and I expect great things from it (and
for what it's worth I generally get great things from it).
-Mike
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
