From Fedora Project Wiki

Revision as of 00:41, 23 February 2010 by Poelstra (talk | contribs)

Roll Call

  • Attendees: John Poelstra, Paul Frields, Matt Domsch, Colin Walters, Mike McGrath
  • Regrets: Chris Tyler

Default Distribution Offering

  • Owner: Paul Frields
  • Question being answered: "On what basis do we have a default offering?"
  • Original page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Different_default_offering
  • Added page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Current_default_offering
  • After some discussion group felt Paul should do a little more work on second page explaining:
    • why we ended up with the default we did, which combines a number of technologies into a platform:
      • GNOME Desktop Environment
      • Compiz (not actually a part of GNOME, but prominent in the UI)
      • Firefox and other third party apps
      • SELinux
      • kernel
    • Is this due to Red Hat as Fedora's main sponsor?
      • In part, because Fedora is driven by contribution, and Red Hat as a Fedora contributor drives a massive amount of free software innovation done directly in the kernel, tools, security, desktop, and elsewhere, and then quickly inherited into Fedora where it can be distributed in consumable form
      • R&D lab idea allows anyone to grow technology in Fedora
      • But other pieces of the platform are "best of breed FOSS" but not due to Red Hat or Fedora necessarily, e.g. Firefox
      • Not just about a desktop environment, but in the future need to give thought to how to design the whole system
      • We need to give thought whenever components change; and we have more room available now (> CD size)
  • NEXT ACTIONS:
    • Paul will do more drafting and post back to Board

Clarifying Issues Around Spins

  • Owners: Matt & Colin
  • Can Spins/SIGS or Fedora remixes define their own target audience?
  • Can Spins/SIGS or Fedora remixes change the code enough to meet their goals?
  • http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2010-February/000996.html
  • Summary of what Matt has tracked down so far https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mdomsch/SWG_Spins
  • As part of the research for this this we tried to get a clearer picture of what the Spins SIG is responsibile for. We understand those responsibilities to be:
      • Managing the approval process for new spins
      • spins pages
      • kickstart file is good
      • Coordinating Board trademark approval
    • Individual spin owners may not participate in the SIG, so will need to reach out to them directly.
  • Spins pain points raised on this recent thread:
  • We still want to make sure that the work of the Spins SIG is not blocked
    • Fedora as a project may not be able to provide all necessary resources to every Spin
    • Spins are a way for contributors to gather connected communities of contributors, create more awareness and contribution to Fedora
    • Community building is primarily a problem of increasing people capacity, not simply working harder
      • Build infrastructure capacity, storage space, etc. -- technical blockers are critical path items
      • Enable easy processes (TM licensing/approvals, etc.) to help contributors without inducing mass chaos
        • alternately, do allow mass chaos where appropriate (Fedora Remix)
      • Make it easier for contributors to help anywhere they want -- lower barriers so that anyone can build the actual workforce in the Fedora Project
  • NEXT STEPS:
    • Matt to email each of the spin owners with the original questions posed to the Spins SIG

Next Meeting

  • March 1, 2010 @ 3 PM EST
  • Discussion topics:
    • Follow-up to Matt and Colin's work on Spins
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Meeting:Board_strategic_working_group_2010-02-22&oldid=155204"