"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/28/2010 05:31 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 17:16:12 +0000, >> "\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\""<johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> It's not far from reality that Red Hat will get bought by a company >>> like Oracle so what's preventing us to get the same treatment as >>> OpenSolaris got? >>> >>> What happens to all the work the community has done, the fruits of >>> our labour? >> The code being distributed and needed for the build system are available. >> Removing the trademarked pieces are easy. >> >> So the project would need to change it's name, get new hardware and network >> service and hope enough community members continued to work on it and that >> there weren't ogranization issues caused by Redhat employees in leadership >> positions being lost. > >For every leadership position that a corporate employee has there needs >to be a equal community member that shares that same role with him. This is utter bullshit. It assumes that anybody who works in the corporate world and happens to have an interest in Fedora is somehow going to be a puppet for the Smokey backroom corporate overlords and their evil designs upon Fedora. It's ludicrous. What about people who work for a university, or work for themselves? Are they somehow immune to making decisions that benefit themselves or their paycheck writer? This continued distinction of "corporate worker" vs "community" is pointless and poisonous. >> >>> The first mistake we did was trying to label end user since it's not >>> up to the project in whole to decide which end user type it's >>> target. >> I disagree. I think the project is the entity that needs to determine this. > >Unfortunate this has the side effect off taking side of one part of the >community over the other ( and the problem that comes with that ) and >usually people that are asked in cases like these are not the once >directly affected by the outcome of that decision. So long as there are SIGs with their own target group and outcome there are going to be conflicts in direction and vision. >>> It's should be up to individual community SIG's to decide what user >>> base they are targeting and the form they will present that to the >>> end user in live cd or a predefined installation option be it with >>> the latest and greatest bits of their product or a not which may or >>> may not be influenced from feed backs from the micro community they >>> have established around the product they ship. >> SIGs will be given a lot of lattitude and the target user will be used >> for resolving conflicts between SIGs. >> > >Not following you here as I see it there would be no conflicts if the >SIGs them selves decided who their target audience is. > What the mobile sig and what the server sig want are going to be different things. That conflict will show itself in package configs, comps groupings, update policy, etc... >>> The Fedora project in whole should give equal access to those bits >>> and devote equal amount of marketing resources to promote them. >> I disagree. Resources are limited. We need to prioritize marketing >> where it will best benefit the project. > >1) > What would be the criteria to determine how to spend those resources. >2) > Should we not then be spending all those resources strictly on core >components on marketing the community in whole where all would benefit >not a sub community within the community in whole.. > The board has decided and defined a target audience, and an offering that benefits that audience. This is where project level marketing and other resources are going to be focused. SIGs can target and market to other people, so long as their changes do not conflict too greatly with the needs of the project default target and offering. -- Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
