On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:52:19AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:42:04 +0000
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On 01/13/2011 02:05 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > We're not taking away DVD sized images...
> >
> > Correct what I'm proposing is that we drop the CD sized images (
> > excluding netinst.iso ) and focus on creating a ca 1G size images (
> > Targetting on 1G usb flash drive size ) instead so the *DE can
> > deliver a more application richer out of the box end user experience.
>
> I don't think the Xfce sig has any plans to move to the higher size.
> Would you forbid us from making the Xfce spin stay at cd sized?
>
> Have you talked with the Desktop sig on their plans? They started to
> move to a 1GB image a while back, then reverted it. I see no reason to
> force a decision on them... why not let them decide what size is best
> for their offering?
>
> > I'm even going out for a limb here and propose that we drop the
> > releng DVD iso when we make this move.
>
> How will people do upgrades? All preupgrade/yum upgrades?
> How will people do installs with different needs than the live media
> provides? netinstall?
>
> One final question here... why is this going to the Board?
> Isn't this a more technical detail that would be suited for FESCo to
> decide? (after all, they decided to drop split cd install media, should
> the Board decide that instead).
>
I could see the Board stepping in as to coordination but not much else.
The coordination piece would be this:
* Some groups design the spins. The RH Desktop Team, the KDE SIG, XFCE SIG,
Electronics Lab SIG, etc.
* Some groups distribute Fedora media. Ambassadors in various regions seem
to primarily handle this physically. There are also several stake
holders to our distribution via the web -- depending on whether we want to
know about historical statistics, cost to provide the service, ideas for
improving the experience, or something else, this might involve
infrastructure, the design team, or the websites team.
* Some groups promote Fedora on the web, to media outlets, installfests,
etc. The design team, docs team, website team, and Ambassadors are the
groups I can think of.
* Some groups pay for this. It seems like that was the RH ComArch Team but
they've moved that to the Ambassadors as well.
I think that in an ideal world, decisions would look like this:
1) A SIG decides that they cannot continue to create media that fits on CD.
They let the other stakeholders know and adjust their spin size to hit
a new target (DVD, 1GB USB, etc).
2) Ambassadors talk with each other about whether the new size is going to
work for them when they hand out media to the people that they are
meeting with. The infrastructure and design teams might also chime in
if they think the new size requirement would have an issue compared to
the historical trends seen in downloads.
2.A) If the size works for everyone, the groups that promote Fedora are
informed of the size change and end-user materials are updated as
appropriate.
2.B) If the size doesn't work for everyone, the groups that distribute
Fedora need to make a decision of what to do. They could:
2.B.1) Switch to using a different spin everywhere that does meet their size
constraints. Once they've made that decision they inform the people
who promote Fedora that they've made that switch and the end-user
materials are updated to reflect the new defaults on the shipping
"media".
2.B.2) Switch to using a different spin in some areas/media forms. They
then need to inform the people promoting Fedora that the media to be
distributed is not going to be the same in all regions of the
world/if you download the default vs if you get a pressed
disk/whatever lines they've decided to differentiate on. End user
materials are then updated to reflect those differences.
Now, that's the ideal. Where the Board comes in is that I'm certain that
each time the decision shifts between stakeholders (and when one decision
requires multiple stakeholders) there's the potential for discussion that
leads to conflict instead of leading to decisions. Or the potential for
a lack of discussion as one set of decision makers fail to inform the next
set. The Board's role would be:
1) To watch for decisions that affect multiple stakeholders and make sure
that everyone is informed so they can make the decisions as a group.
2) Mediate the inevitable conflicts.
3) Try to make it so that everyone is able to continue getting the work done
that they want despite (or by making) the changes
Note that I speak only for myself in this, for other Board Member opinions
you'd need to ask other Board Members. For the Board as a whole -- we'd
need to actually write down the rules that govern what the Board and other
governance bodies in Fedora do to know whether the Board as a whole sees
this as the mission that the Board should undertake.
-Toshio "Louisiana Purchase" Kuratomi
Attachment:
pgpytu2Jc1Fdh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
