On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 23 January 2014 11:48, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing >> > seemed >> > to be a fait accompli such that there seemed to be little point doing >> > anything other than sitting back and seeing what happened. >> > >> > You know, the way one minute it was just a suggestion from one member of >> > the >> > community and the next minute it was all decided and people were busy >> > forming working groups to sort out the details. Apparently that >> > miraculous >> > transition happened at Flock, but for anybody that wasn't there it was >> > as if >> > it was a god given edict that had been handed down on tablets of stone >> > that >> > Fedora.next was happening and we should all just be good little children >> > and >> > get on with it. >> >> There _was_ a lot that was discussed and presented at Flock. It's >> kind of the purpose of Flock (and FUDCon before that). Get people >> together to have big discussions in a high bandwith fashion. And yes, >> that can mean that those not in attendance are left to catch up a bit >> (though at least with Flock we tried to stream all the sessions to >> help with that). >> >> However, it wasn't decided at Flock. It was presented after Flock to >> FESCo, in the normal, online FESCo meetings. It went further from >> there to the Board via the usual channels. All of this was done as >> any other proposal would normally be handled. Perhaps the only >> unusual thing was the relative lack of debate and delay. >> > > My view of the matter was pretty much the same as Tom's and I was at FLOCK. > The language at the sessions I attended was not one of "We would like to do > this" but that it was a done thing. I realize a lot of that is the 'get shit > done because we are all together' mentality which comes from conferences but > by the time I left FLOCK I was pretty sure this was all done and either get > in the boat or get out. I wasn't even aware of the FESCO items until this > email as I figured it had been done and decided at FLOCK. If one is advocating for something they strongly believe in, they definitely are not going to say "I think maybe we should do this kinda but it might be a crazy idea." They advocate by saying "I am going to do this and I am going to drive it forward until I am told no." That doesn't mean they can just skip all the processes and steps required to get their idea approved. So yes, I think for this specific item it was the "get stuff done" mentality that might have been misleading. The ideas were still carried forward per process though. > Fedora.NEXT became irrelevant to me when I realized the committees were > mostly hand-chosen versus elected like FESCO. I realize that was to get > stuff done versus having a bunch of bureaucratci elections, but it snuffed > whatever 'joy' I was going to have to participate in as a 'non-voting' > member of a committee. The best way for me to allow the people to get work > they wanted to get done was to get out of the way, and so I have. Now that I > am asked why I am not enthused, I am explaining. Boostrapping is hard. I didn't come up with the idea and this might not have been the best way to do it, but hindsight is 20/20. I do hope that if you are interested in a WG/Product that you do participate because the governance for them is set up and will allow different WG members going forward. I've also seen lots of non-member participation be really fruitful already. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
