On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 21:26:24 -0400, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote: > Hey Ankur :) Thanks for weighing in. > > > On 6/12/20 1:14 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 12:17:07 -0400, Justin W. Flory (he/him) wrote: > >> 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. > > > > This is not accurate either, Justin. There are two components: > > > > - the trademark, infra, and a majority of tangible assets that the > > community relies on owned by Red Hat, > > - the work, the ideas, and a large proportion of the non tangible bits > > are owned/shared/contributed collectively by the community----this > > includes Red Hat employees that we all work together with and are most > > grateful for. > > > > I see it the same way too. I am curious though. Where do you frame event > organizing and fiscal support for events between these two components? Well, to me, a Fedora event is merely one where Fedora is discussed amongst some members of the Fedora community, which could just be a group of users that don't even have FAS accounts. People are free to use, and discuss Fedora lawfully. In fact, we encourage such informal gatherings because they're much easier to organise than "official" events. If the CoC is not followed at such an event, it is the responsibility of the individuals there to point it out and take appropriate actions. I think this message also needs to stressed on---upholding the CoC is everyone's responsibility, not just that of the Council/Mindshare/etc. This discussion in this thread applies to Fedora *endorsed* events, events where people "officially" represent Fedora in some capacity. The officialness generally comes from Fedora financially supporting them in some way. > I guess I saw event organization and sponsorship as a trademark issue > (and thus, "owned by Red Hat"). If a Red Hat or IBM lawyer (not a > Council member, not an active Fedora Community member) sent an angry > email to the FPL or FCAIC that Fedora *must* back out of an event for > whatever reason or another, Fedora is going to back out of the event. > One way or the other. Some probably disagree with me on this, but it is > the way I see it. (I do not see that as a negative though.) Sure, Fedora can release a statement and pull funding. Doesn't mean someone can't attend an event in a personal capacity and still talk about Fedora as long as they follow the law and the event's CoC, right? > The question I am centering with this proposal is, how do we navigate > that situation when it happens next? Not if, when. :) > > But perhaps I am focusing in on the trademark aspect too much. So, I am > curious where/how you frame event support! I hope the above explains it. > > One cannot exist without the other, and the task of the community, and > > the Council in particular, is to ensure that while following the > > regulations that apply to Red Hat, the community is still able to pursue > > its social goals and ideals. > > > As I keep screaming, mostly in the Fedora Join channels, Fedora = the > > people, and then Fedora = the deliverables. If some day in the future, > > Red Hat is no longer able to back the community, the people of Fedora > > will still exist and I personally think we will be able to continue the > > community even if we need to find a new name. (RPMFusion is already an > > example this.) > > > > I agree Fedora is its Community first, in terms of what makes it special > and unique. I also think the Community would find a way to continue if > Red Hat magically decided to pull out of Fedora tomorrow (*not* that > this is something I am remotely worried about right now). > > But I know there are Red Hatters and IBMers who won't get it. Not that > they should by default either. It is hard to expect any organization of > 352,600+ people[1] to understand what a few thousand folks active in > Fedora know from direct experience. :) And ultimately, regardless of who > is in the position, the FPL, FCAIC, FPgM, and other salaried Fedora > Leadership positions have to report to someone, who reports to someone, > who also probably reports to someone (who most-likely does not > participate in Fedora). I don't quite understand the point here. Red Hatters and IBMers who are not part of Fedora need not get anything. Irrespective of who the FPL, FCAIC, FPgM etc. report to, a part of their jobs (which is what makes them very very hard IMO) is to balance the community's interests with corporate interests. Luckily, we always have folks who do this very well. In general, I agree that the governing bodies can pull funding and support if the CoC isn't followed, for example. I was merely replying to your remark related to the "ownership" of Fedora. I just generally disagree with "Fedora is owned by Red Hat" because in my head it dismisses the people of Fedora. I prefer that people say "Fedora's tangible assets are owned by Red Hat" which includes the implicit understanding that "volunteers use these resources to promote FOSS by producing various artefacts". This is all tangential to this Council policy, though, so let's talk it over in a different channel sometime when we can :) -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP 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
