Re: Council policy proposal: withdrawing support from events

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Outreach]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora KDE]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux Audio Users]

  Powered by Linux