On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 22:24 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 17. 03. 20 19:01, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Some specific ideas: FESCo and/or the Council should be taking a > > stronger lead here. > > What is your idea of FESCo stronger lead here? > > I just want to say that for the past year at FESCo, I got a strong impression > that we heavily really on what Fedora Projects member do. We rubber stamp > decisions, we do hard decisions ourselves, we approve and reject things. We > firefight problems. However there always needs to be somebody who is driving an > effort. Sure, several FESCo members are driving several distro-wide efforts, > however I don't really see myself (for example) to drive Fedora 32 Beta CoreOS. > > Thank you for bringing this topic up. I'm not talking about driving the details of technical work on the project; there's no need for that, that's what the people in the project teams do *already*. It's *other* stuff, stuff that *isn't* just 'how do we build Fedora IoT' or 'how do we build Fedora CoreOS'. Let's go back to Fedora.next again. What was the core of the Fedora.next effort? It wasn't about making specific decisions about what apps would go into Workstation or how exactly the role system in Server would work. It was about defining "this is the scope of what we're trying to achieve here", "these are the Editions we're going to have", "this is what an Edition *is*", "this is what the end point of the overall Fedora.next effort looks like", "this is the path we're going to take to get there", and about then monitoring that process, and about communicating that cohesively, coherently and repeatedly. It's doing stuff like "hey, Fedora 21 release is coming up, are all the editions on track? What do we actually expect of them at that point, and are they all there or thereabouts? If not, what isn't done, and let's poke them to get it done and then keep track of whether it gets done". That kinda stuff. The idea that IoT and/or CoreOS would be release-blocking editions (for Fedora 30, initially, then 31, now 32...) has been - at least, this is my experience and my memory - sort of floating around for months/years, but aside from that one fairly rough document on the IoT doc space, when I went looking I couldn't really find any indication that anyone (FESCo, the Council, FPL, FPGM, anyone) had done anything formal - a ticket, a Change, a wiki page, a mailing list mail, really anything - that said "this is a goal and this is what we think the process of getting there looks like". There was just no process there at all. Maybe I missed it, I dunno. But that's the sort of thing I'm missing. That's not something the IoT or CoreOS teams can really bootstrap, that doesn't really work, because they're not sitting in the right place to have an *overview* of the whole thing from the position of "Fedora the project", they don't have the right levers to pull and it's not their job to do that. They can *say they want it to happen*, but if we just leave it up to the individual teams to make it happen...somehow?...it's not really going to work, IMHO. The trigger for this line of thinking was this comment I ran across this morning: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/1166100-fedora-32-beta-released-with-earlyoom-by-default-gnome-3-36-desktop?p=1166101#post1166101 Put yourself in that person's shoes - just a regular community enthusiast who's interested in Fedora. They're reading the news sites (doesn't have to be Phoronix, could be anywhere). They see a story that Fedora 32 Beta is out. As you can see from that comment, we've done enough public communication about them that this person is aware that 'Silverblue' and 'CoreOS' are Fedora Things that are kind of important. That's why they're expecting them to be a part of a Fedora 32 Beta release announcement. But, what do they find? Nothing! The announcement doesn't mention them, the download page doesn't mention them, nothing in the story we're telling around the Beta references them at all. It means we're not telling people a coherent story about what Fedora is and where it's going. That in turn will damage their confidence in 'Fedora' as a whole, even if they try a bit of the beta that *is* there and find it works great. It's still going to be in their head that we don't seem to have our story as to where we're going completely straightened out. That's not a problem of the IoT team or the CoreOS team or the Silverblue team, it's a *Fedora* problem, which is why it needs a 'Fedora' body or person to care about it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
