On 6/12/20 2:04 AM, jean-baptiste@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > This proposal may looks like a good idea, but as it is written it is not. > > What troubles me is: what defines Fedora interest? > > First scenario: Let's say the government of the country where our main sponsors has its headquarters decide to stop relationship with one or many other countries. > > Council may say it is not in Fedora's interest to go there, while the event itself have nothing wrong about it. > > > Second scenario: a contributor helps a movement that fights against its own government, and decide to hold a boot/workshop/etc. > > How do you define Fedora interest here? > > > Fedora should be own by its community with as much support as possible for local initiatives. Adding a rules like this without open evaluation criterias gives a bad signal. > > Even if council is based on elected and nominated member to represents us, it doesn't council member wont always be good and without any external influences. Hey Jean-Baptiste, I agree evaluation criteria could be better scoped. But I think there is a balance between too-defined and too-broad. We cannot predict every possible scenario that will happen. These types of problems are not like code; they involve real-life people and communities. We cannot "compile" a policy into a clean package like a binary :) So, on one hand, defining the criteria can be helpful for transparency. But on the other hand, I think over-defining the criteria is not helpful. If a controversial situation comes up and the documented criteria does not capture it, we will probably end up with a similar situation to SELF anyways. I also want to bring attention to this line: > "Fedora should be own by its community" I understand the motive behind this. I want to believe it too. :) But I feel like this is a myth we sometimes believe in the Fedora Community. Fedora's trademark, brand, and identity (not code) are owned by Red Hat as far as an Intellectual Property lawyer or a judiciary is concerned. Ask any non-RH Fedora community member that has ever had to interact with Red Hat's legal team about anything Fedora. I think we must be direct and address the elephant in the room: Red Hat is the ultimate fiscal and legal sponsor of the Fedora Project. This includes funding, providing salaries for people to work on Fedora, and legal representation. So, I feel like it is a myth that Fedora should be owned by the community, because really it isn't. This isn't bad or something I think we should be ashamed of, and it does *not* mean the Council should not listen or include the Community in decision-making. But I think it is a reality we need to call out and make clear. Fedora is not owned by the Fedora Community. I say this as someone who has only ever participated in Fedora as a volunteer community member. -- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) jwf.io TZ=America/New_York
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
