Discussion:
Board meeting recap, 2010 10-18
(too old to reply)
Máirín Duffy
2010-10-18 19:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2010-10-18/fedora-board.2010-10-18-18.16.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2010-10-18/fedora-board.2010-10-18-18.16.txt
Log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-board-meeting/2010-10-18/fedora-board.2010-10-18-18.16.log.html

Quick summary:
We held the meeting in #fedora-meeting because of problems with the
phone.

1. Blocker review (ctyler, 18:19:15)

2. Open Tickets (#82 - Community Working Group charter) (ctyler,
18:21:16)
1. the board commends everyone who has been fixing bugs,
especially in the run-up to release candidate (mdomsch, 18:21:31)
2. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy (mdomsch,
18:32:33)
3. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy (mdomsch,
18:32:36)
4. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_helpers_code_of_conduct
(mdomsch, 18:35:32)
5.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/IRC/Support_Channel_Meeting
(mdomsch, 18:36:26)

3. F15 Naming (ctyler, 18:49:21)
1. ACTION: mdomsch to send list of names to vette per board
member for initial approval (mdomsch, 19:01:04)

4. EMEA Media question (ctyler, 19:01:29)
1. ACTION: ctyler to communicate to EMEA that the board is open
to having a disc-of-spins use the Fedora name as long as the
spin-selection software is packaged for Fedora, the spins use the same
name as on the spins website, with the exception of the desktop spin
which should be called the "desktop spin", and we see a prototype for
approval (ctyler, 19:11:54)
2.
http://mairin.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/fedora-board-meetings-27-sept-2010-1-oct-2010/ (mizmo, 19:17:06)



Cheers,
~m
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-19 00:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi Mo,

thanks for posting the meeting minutes.
Post by Máirín Duffy
4. EMEA Media question (ctyler, 19:01:29)
1. ACTION: ctyler to communicate to EMEA that the board is open
to having a disc-of-spins use the Fedora name as long as the
spin-selection software is packaged for Fedora, the spins use the same
name as on the spins website, with the exception of the desktop spin
which should be called the "desktop spin" and we see a prototype for
approval (ctyler, 19:11:54)
As far as I understand from reading the meeting logs, there are two
concerns:

* It needs to be tested. The prototype is available for three
weeks now at http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/torrents/ -
please test!
We will make an F14 dual layer version once live images of TC2
are available.

* The (one and only) desktop (TM) must not be referred to as the
"GNOME". We are not, please look at
Loading Image...
GNOME is called "Fedora 14 Live" just like the ISO and is the
default selection. The only reference to the name GNOME is on
the filesystem. We will change this if it makes you happy.

Can we now please get the formal approval for the media? We cannot
afford to loose another week because we want the media available for the
F14 release events.

Regards,
Christoph
Máirín Duffy
2010-10-19 02:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
* It needs to be tested. The prototype is available for three
weeks now at http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/torrents/ -
please test!
We will make an F14 dual layer version once live images of TC2
are available.
Three weeks this coming Thursday. It's still Monday here.

You mentioned on IRC that some testing has already been done; is there
any wiki page with the results or any other testing data available?

Some questions with my UX designer cap on:

- For the dual layer, how do you intend to help users understand which
side is which? (I'm guessing one side of the dual-layer is 32-bit, the
other 64-bit?)

- Does the manufacturer have a way of labeling the full center plastic
ring or is it only just a narrow strip as with the SUSE discs?

- If only a thin plastic ring is available, do you have any idea from
the manufacturer on the character length limits of the label and a draft
of what you would have it say for each side? How about character length
limits for a wider center label?

- Are these going to be provided in a printed sleeve? If so, do you have
any mockups/designs/copy for the sleeve?

- What style sleeve - cardboard pocket or one with a plastic ring?

It seems since it would be printed dual-layer, it would be difficult to
provide a good label for the disc making the sleeve design even more
critical for identifying the disc and instructing users on how to use
it.
Post by Christoph Wickert
* The (one and only) desktop (TM) must not be referred to as the
"GNOME". We are not, please look at
http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/screenshots/f13-multi-desktop-dvd.png
GNOME is called "Fedora 14 Live" just like the ISO and is the
default selection. The only reference to the name GNOME is on
the filesystem. We will change this if it makes you happy.
I have a few concerns about the design of this menu:

- Does every item need to mention Fedora 13?
- Can the entire disk be verified with a single menu item?
- Could the names for each of the desktop items be a bit more
friendly and readable?

E.g., rather than this, which I think is a little overwhelming to read:

* Fedora-13-i686-Live
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live
* Fedora-13-i686-Live-KDE
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live-KDE
* Fedora-13-i686-Live-LXDE
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live-LXDE
* Fedora-13-i686-Live-XFCE
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live-XFCE

Could it maybe instead read like this, which I think is a bit more approachable:

* Boot Fedora Live
* Boot Fedora Live KDE
* Boot Fedora Live LXDE
* Boot Fedora Live XFCE
* Verify media

?
Post by Christoph Wickert
Can we now please get the formal approval for the media? We cannot
afford to loose another week because we want the media available for the
F14 release events.
Board members, could we add this to the agenda on Thursday 21 Oct? We
were going to meet at 2 pm to discuss the codenames, right?

Otherwise, it could be added to next Monday's (25 Oct) agenda. I'm not
sure if it's possible to approve a trademark request without quorum, or
over the mailing list? (Can any old-timer board members verify if this
is or is not the case?)

~m
Ed Greshko
2010-10-19 02:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Máirín Duffy
Post by Christoph Wickert
* It needs to be tested. The prototype is available for three
Post by Christoph Wickert
weeks now at http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/torrents/ -
please test!
We will make an F14 dual layer version once live images of TC2
are available.
Three weeks this coming Thursday. It's still Monday here.
You mentioned on IRC that some testing has already been done; is there
any wiki page with the results or any other testing data available?
- For the dual layer, how do you intend to help users understand which
side is which? (I'm guessing one side of the dual-layer is 32-bit, the
other 64-bit?)
Are we talking "dual-layer" as in 9GB on a single side...or "dual-side"
as in 4.5GB on each side?
Jesse Keating
2010-10-19 03:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Greshko
Post by Máirín Duffy
Post by Christoph Wickert
* It needs to be tested. The prototype is available for three
Post by Christoph Wickert
weeks now at http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/torrents/ -
please test!
We will make an F14 dual layer version once live images of TC2
are available.
Three weeks this coming Thursday. It's still Monday here.
You mentioned on IRC that some testing has already been done; is there
any wiki page with the results or any other testing data available?
- For the dual layer, how do you intend to help users understand which
side is which? (I'm guessing one side of the dual-layer is 32-bit, the
other 64-bit?)
Are we talking "dual-layer" as in 9GB on a single side...or "dual-side"
as in 4.5GB on each side?
- From what I understand, it is dual-layer as in a single side.

- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Ed Greshko
2010-10-19 04:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jesse Keating
- From what I understand, it is dual-layer as in a single side.
OK. So, that would mean there should be no real concern about the disk
label. Right?
Jesse Keating
2010-10-19 04:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Greshko
Post by Jesse Keating
- From what I understand, it is dual-layer as in a single side.
OK. So, that would mean there should be no real concern about the disk
label. Right?
Other than getting board approval for it, I believe that's correct.

- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Máirín Duffy
2010-10-19 14:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Greshko
Post by Jesse Keating
- From what I understand, it is dual-layer as in a single side.
OK. So, that would mean there should be no real concern about the disk
label. Right?
Since it's 2 architectures and 4 desktops on one disc, I would like to
review the copy for the disk label to make sure it's clear.

~m
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-21 13:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Máirín Duffy
Since it's 2 architectures and 4 desktops on one disc, I would like to
review the copy for the disk label to make sure it's clear.
Has the board ever done this before approving any spin?

What ever we do, we will hardly manage to be more unclear than the
labeling of the Desktop live media that does not mention GNOME, not even
in small print.
Post by Máirín Duffy
~m
Regards,
Christoph
Máirín Duffy
2010-10-21 13:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Máirín Duffy
Since it's 2 architectures and 4 desktops on one disc, I would like to
review the copy for the disk label to make sure it's clear.
Has the board ever done this before approving any spin?
What ever we do, we will hardly manage to be more unclear than the
labeling of the Desktop live media that does not mention GNOME, not even
in small print.
Please read what I wrote:

"Some questions with my UX designer cap on:"

~m
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-19 07:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Máirín Duffy
Post by Christoph Wickert
* It needs to be tested. The prototype is available for three
weeks now at http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/torrents/ -
please test!
We will make an F14 dual layer version once live images of TC2
are available.
Three weeks this coming Thursday. It's still Monday here.
Sorry, I should have written "*nearly* three weeks.
Post by Máirín Duffy
You mentioned on IRC that some testing has already been done; is there
any wiki page with the results or any other testing data available?
As I said to Jeremy: It boots. Everything else is taken care of by QA,
please use the normal test results.

Has the board ever requested any testing results before approving a
spin?
Post by Máirín Duffy
- For the dual layer, how do you intend to help users understand which
side is which? (I'm guessing one side of the dual-layer is 32-bit, the
other 64-bit?)
Dual layer is not dual sided.

Regards,
Christoph
Máirín Duffy
2010-10-19 14:22:29 UTC
Permalink
There are a lot of questions I asked that you haven't answered. I was
wondering if you could look them over and let me know. Thanks.

~m
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-21 13:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Máirín Duffy
There are a lot of questions I asked that you haven't answered.
I'm sorry, I was on the train and I had to leave, therefor I finished
the mail after your first question. I felt I had answered them all,
because most of your questions were based on the false assumption that
dual layer was dual sided.
Post by Máirín Duffy
- For the dual layer, how do you intend to help users understand which
side is which? (I'm guessing one side of the dual-layer is 32-bit, the
other 64-bit?)
Dual layer is not dual sided. It's like any other media we distribute.
Post by Máirín Duffy
- Does the manufacturer have a way of labeling the full center plastic
ring or is it only just a narrow strip as with the SUSE discs?
Dual layer is not dual sided. One side will be labeled full.
Post by Máirín Duffy
- If only a thin plastic ring is available, do you have any idea from
the manufacturer on the character length limits of the label and a
draft of what you would have it say for each side? How about character
length limits for a wider center label?
Dual layer is not dual sided. It's like any other media we distribute.
Post by Máirín Duffy
- Are these going to be provided in a printed sleeve? If so, do you
have any mockups/designs/copy for the sleeve?
If we get the approval, we can do this within an hour. Remember, we
already had to do it for the Xfce and LXDE spins as the design team did
not help us.
Post by Máirín Duffy
- What style sleeve - cardboard pocket or one with a plastic ring?
Cardboard pocket. Like any other media we distribute.
Post by Máirín Duffy
It seems since it would be printed dual-layer, it would be difficult to
provide a good label for the disc making the sleeve design even more
critical for identifying the disc and instructing users on how to use
it.
Dual layer is not dual sided. It's like any other media we distribute.
Post by Máirín Duffy
I was
wondering if you could look them over and let me know. Thanks.
There are also a lot of questions from me to you or the board meanwhile.
Can you look over them? And another one is still to come: If you have so
many questions and concerns, why didn't you speak up during the board
meeting? (This goes for other board members too of course)

As I already said to Jesse: It seems the board is setting way higher
standards for testing or QA and has way more concerns for artwork or
infrastructure than for any other spin that was ever approved. To me and
many other ambassadors this looks as if the board is trying to
anticipate our volunteer work.

Regards,
Christoph
Chris Tyler
2010-10-21 14:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
As I already said to Jesse: It seems the board is setting way higher
standards for testing or QA and has way more concerns for artwork or
infrastructure than for any other spin that was ever approved. To me and
many other ambassadors this looks as if the board is trying to
anticipate our volunteer work.
Hi Christoph,

Just to be clear: the board was very positive about this work -- it's a
great idea.

It seems a bit rushed to me, though, to be at this point just a few
weeks before the F14 release, especially since this disc is going to be
the first contact with Fedora for many users. I would be way more
comfortable if we did this in the F15 timeframe so we could do thorough
and widespread testing, look-and-feel integration, and so forth.

-Chris
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-22 07:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Tyler
Post by Christoph Wickert
As I already said to Jesse: It seems the board is setting way higher
standards for testing or QA and has way more concerns for artwork or
infrastructure than for any other spin that was ever approved. To me and
many other ambassadors this looks as if the board is trying to
anticipate our volunteer work.
Hi Christoph,
Just to be clear: the board was very positive about this work -- it's a
great idea.
Hi Chris,

the reactions I'm getting from various board members does not gives me a
different impression.
Post by Chris Tyler
It seems a bit rushed to me, though, to be at this point just a few
weeks before the F14 release, especially since this disc is going to be
the first contact with Fedora for many users. I would be way more
comfortable if we did this in the F15 timeframe
Note that we do not necessarily depend on the release. In the past we
did not have the media available for GA ether, it's just that we would
like to have it for our events. There are not so many events in EMEA
directly after release though.
Post by Chris Tyler
so we could do thorough and widespread testing,
As mentioned before, there already was more testing than for any other
desktop spin before.
Post by Chris Tyler
look-and-feel integration, and so forth.
What look-and-feel integration? Whatever needs to be changed must be
changed in the individual spin but not in the DVD we want to make of
them.

Regards,
Christoph
Jesse Keating
2010-10-21 18:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
As I already said to Jesse: It seems the board is setting way higher
standards for testing or QA and has way more concerns for artwork or
infrastructure than for any other spin that was ever approved. To me and
many other ambassadors this looks as if the board is trying to
anticipate our volunteer work.
Completely incorrect.

A) Every other spin has to be proposed and approved prior to the Feature
Freeze of a release. We're well past that for this.

B) This is not a normal spin. Normal spins are generated by well
understood tools already in the Fedora distribution with established
usage knowledge, and are produced nightly for testing, and at each
milestone. This is not.

- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Paul W. Frields
2010-10-21 18:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
As I already said to Jesse: It seems the board is setting way higher
standards for testing or QA and has way more concerns for artwork or
infrastructure than for any other spin that was ever approved. To me and
many other ambassadors this looks as if the board is trying to
anticipate our volunteer work.
Completely incorrect.
A) Every other spin has to be proposed and approved prior to the Feature
Freeze of a release. We're well past that for this.
B) This is not a normal spin. Normal spins are generated by well
understood tools already in the Fedora distribution with established
usage knowledge, and are produced nightly for testing, and at each
milestone. This is not.
It seems to me this isn't the first time people have felt the need to
turn away a very late-breaking change, even though everyone's got all
the best intentions in trying to do something cool. Can we use this
as an opportunity to figure out what we as a project could do better,
in terms of our schedule, to let contributors know points after which
changes (beyond packages or features) should be deferred to the next
release? I know we have schedules for spins, rel-eng, and
development, but what could we do better to make sure groups like
Ambassadors are aware of them and not laboring hard at the last minute
only to be told "no"?

Perhaps we should add specific schedule items to the Ambassadors
schedule? Or is it more appropriate to ask that changes like this be
worked through on specific topical lists like rel-eng or devel?
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
Joerg Simon
2010-10-21 18:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul W. Frields
I know we have schedules for spins, rel-eng, and
development, but what could we do better to make sure groups like
Ambassadors are aware of them and not laboring hard at the last minute
only to be told "no"?
I do not think this is a Ambassador related issue. Because part of the
job of an Ambassador is to know what is going on in the all the groups
inside Fedora who else should know the release schedule better :)

cu Joerg
--
Joerg (kital) Simon
***@fedoraproject.org
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JoergSimon
http://kitall.blogspot.com
Key Fingerprint:
3691 0989 2DCA 58A2 8D1F 2CAC C823 558E 5B5B 5688
Robyn Bergeron
2010-10-21 19:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul W. Frields
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
As I already said to Jesse: It seems the board is setting way higher
standards for testing or QA and has way more concerns for artwork or
infrastructure than for any other spin that was ever approved. To me and
many other ambassadors this looks as if the board is trying to
anticipate our volunteer work.
Completely incorrect.
A) Every other spin has to be proposed and approved prior to the Feature
Freeze of a release.  We're well past that for this.
B) This is not a normal spin.  Normal spins are generated by well
understood tools already in the Fedora distribution with established
usage knowledge, and are produced nightly for testing, and at each
milestone.  This is not.
It seems to me this isn't the first time people have felt the need to
turn away a very late-breaking change, even though everyone's got all
the best intentions in trying to do something cool.  Can we use this
as an opportunity to figure out what we as a project could do better,
in terms of our schedule, to let contributors know points after which
changes (beyond packages or features) should be deferred to the next
release?  I know we have schedules for spins, rel-eng, and
development, but what could we do better to make sure groups like
Ambassadors are aware of them and not laboring hard at the last minute
only to be told "no"?
Perhaps we should add specific schedule items to the Ambassadors
schedule?  Or is it more appropriate to ask that changes like this be
worked through on specific topical lists like rel-eng or devel?
There are some items to this effect on the Ambassadors schedule.

http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-ambassadors-tasks.html

However, the line items wrt media have more to do with coordinating
what spins / media are desired in each region, so that appropriate
artwork can be coordinated in a timely fashion, allowing design-team
time to create whatever artwork is needed, as well as figure out
budget availability for selected media. The date for this process
kicks off ~5 weeks after spins freeze. If regional Ambassador teams
are anticipating wanting to create new custom spins for their
respective regions each cycle, we certainly should notate the spins
submission and freeze dates on the Ambassadors' schedule, at a bare
minimum.

Beyond that, as far as education, I have seen Ambassadors asking
about, "Can I do X, Y, or Z with $media" - perhaps some simple
sessions, either in an IRC classroom, FUDCon, or pre-recorded video
might be helpful. ie: "Want to know the differences between a Beta
Change Deadline, Feature Freeze, Software String Freeze,
Infrastructure Freeze, and Spins Freeze, and how they affect what you
want to do?" And I don't think that usefulness would be limited to
Ambassadors - I think it would certainly be helpful for new
developers, packagers, community folks in general.
Post by Paul W. Frields
--
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
 gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
         Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-22 08:00:31 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by Christoph Wickert
As I already said to Jesse: It seems the board is setting way higher
standards for testing or QA and has way more concerns for artwork or
infrastructure than for any other spin that was ever approved. To me and
many other ambassadors this looks as if the board is trying to
anticipate our volunteer work.
Completely incorrect.
I'm sorry, but this is the impression I and other ambassadors got. An
impression cannot be incorrect, it can be based on facts or not. And it
is a fact that the demands for the media for testing, infrastructure and
approval that were expressed during this discussion are higher than for
any other desktop spin before. Do we agree on that?
A) Every other spin has to be proposed and approved prior to the Feature
Freeze of a release. We're well past that for this.
According to the definition this is not a spin. It's not "tailored for
various types of users", it doesn't have any "hand-picked application
sets" or any "other customizations". It doesn't meet the definition of a
feature ether. Thus the schedule does not apply.
B) This is not a normal spin.
Right, it's not a normal spin.

It's just a different form of delivery. We already handed out USB keys
and there was no need get this approved or follow the spins/feature
process ether. This media is only subject to the ambassadors schedule
for media production and we were on time until we got delayed.
Normal spins are generated by well
understood tools already in the Fedora distribution with established
usage knowledge, and are produced nightly for testing, and at each
milestone. This is not.
Only the collection is not, the individual spins it consists of are.

Regards,
Christoph
Máirín Duffy
2010-10-21 18:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Hi Christoph,
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Máirín Duffy
There are a lot of questions I asked that you haven't answered.
I'm sorry, I was on the train and I had to leave, therefor I finished
the mail after your first question. I felt I had answered them all,
because most of your questions were based on the false assumption that
dual layer was dual sided.
There's a few questions you missed. See below.

Thanks,
~m
Post by Christoph Wickert
- Does every item need to mention Fedora 13?
- Can the entire disk be verified with a single menu item?
- Could the names for each of the desktop items be a bit more
friendly and readable?
* Fedora-13-i686-Live
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live
* Fedora-13-i686-Live-KDE
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live-KDE
* Fedora-13-i686-Live-LXDE
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live-LXDE
* Fedora-13-i686-Live-XFCE
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live-XFCE
* Boot Fedora Live
* Boot Fedora Live KDE
* Boot Fedora Live LXDE
* Boot Fedora Live XFCE
* Verify media
Gregory Fenton
2010-10-19 09:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Just a little clarification:

Dual layer discs are actually not the same as dual sided discs, they can be
printed on just like a normal DVD. Dual layer discs work by refocussing the
laser slightly above the normal focussing point so the data on the second
layer does not interfere with the first.

A lot of video DVDs are produced as dual layer DVDs, most drives can read
them without modification.

The fact some drives display "Dual Layer" is purely because they are DVD
writers, earlier DVD writers could not write to the second layer.

Dual layer is part of the DVD standard - all DVD drives should by design be
able to read dual layer DVDs even if they can not write to them.

Best regards to one and all

Greg Fenton
Post by Máirín Duffy
Post by Christoph Wickert
* It needs to be tested. The prototype is available for three
weeks now at http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/torrents/ -
please test!
We will make an F14 dual layer version once live images of TC2
are available.
Three weeks this coming Thursday. It's still Monday here.
You mentioned on IRC that some testing has already been done; is there
any wiki page with the results or any other testing data available?
- For the dual layer, how do you intend to help users understand which
side is which? (I'm guessing one side of the dual-layer is 32-bit, the
other 64-bit?)
- Does the manufacturer have a way of labeling the full center plastic
ring or is it only just a narrow strip as with the SUSE discs?
- If only a thin plastic ring is available, do you have any idea from
the manufacturer on the character length limits of the label and a draft
of what you would have it say for each side? How about character length
limits for a wider center label?
- Are these going to be provided in a printed sleeve? If so, do you have
any mockups/designs/copy for the sleeve?
- What style sleeve - cardboard pocket or one with a plastic ring?
It seems since it would be printed dual-layer, it would be difficult to
provide a good label for the disc making the sleeve design even more
critical for identifying the disc and instructing users on how to use
it.
Post by Christoph Wickert
* The (one and only) desktop (TM) must not be referred to as the
"GNOME". We are not, please look at
http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/screenshots/f13-multi-desktop-dvd.png
Post by Christoph Wickert
GNOME is called "Fedora 14 Live" just like the ISO and is the
default selection. The only reference to the name GNOME is on
the filesystem. We will change this if it makes you happy.
- Does every item need to mention Fedora 13?
- Can the entire disk be verified with a single menu item?
- Could the names for each of the desktop items be a bit more
friendly and readable?
* Fedora-13-i686-Live
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live
* Fedora-13-i686-Live-KDE
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live-KDE
* Fedora-13-i686-Live-LXDE
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live-LXDE
* Fedora-13-i686-Live-XFCE
* Verify and Boot Fedora-13-i686-Live-XFCE
* Boot Fedora Live
* Boot Fedora Live KDE
* Boot Fedora Live LXDE
* Boot Fedora Live XFCE
* Verify media
?
Post by Christoph Wickert
Can we now please get the formal approval for the media? We cannot
afford to loose another week because we want the media available for the
F14 release events.
Board members, could we add this to the agenda on Thursday 21 Oct? We
were going to meet at 2 pm to discuss the codenames, right?
Otherwise, it could be added to next Monday's (25 Oct) agenda. I'm not
sure if it's possible to approve a trademark request without quorum, or
over the mailing list? (Can any old-timer board members verify if this
is or is not the case?)
~m
--
ambassadors mailing list
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ambassadors
Jesse Keating
2010-10-19 03:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
As far as I understand from reading the meeting logs, there are two
* It needs to be tested. The prototype is available for three
weeks now at http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/torrents/ -
please test!
We will make an F14 dual layer version once live images of TC2
are available.
There is not going to be a TC2. We are moving on to RC. It is FAR too
late to be introducing technology that needs to be tested and planned
for at this stage in the release cycle.
Post by Christoph Wickert
* The (one and only) desktop (TM) must not be referred to as the
"GNOME". We are not, please look at
http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/screenshots/f13-multi-desktop-dvd.png
GNOME is called "Fedora 14 Live" just like the ISO and is the
default selection. The only reference to the name GNOME is on
the filesystem. We will change this if it makes you happy.
Can we now please get the formal approval for the media? We cannot
afford to loose another week because we want the media available for the
F14 release events.
I still haven't seen any plan for how to handle our source obligation.

- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-19 07:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jesse Keating
There is not going to be a TC2. We are moving on to RC.
Is this process documented in the wiki somewhere?
Post by Jesse Keating
It is FAR too
late to be introducing technology that needs to be tested and planned
for at this stage in the release cycle.
The only thing that needs testing is the boot menu. The rest is taken
care of by the normal spins/desktop testing we already do and did.
Post by Jesse Keating
I still haven't seen any plan for how to handle our source obligation.
I cannot give you a plan if nobody outlines the obligations to me. Why
is the DVD different than the other spins?
Post by Jesse Keating
- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
I wish it was.

Regards,
Christoph
Jesse Keating
2010-10-19 07:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
There is not going to be a TC2. We are moving on to RC.
Is this process documented in the wiki somewhere?
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-releng-tasks.html
is probably the best place, which was linked to from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Schedule
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
It is FAR too
late to be introducing technology that needs to be tested and planned
for at this stage in the release cycle.
The only thing that needs testing is the boot menu. The rest is taken
care of by the normal spins/desktop testing we already do and did.
That's still something that needs testing, needs a testing plan, needs
coordination. Not something that can easily be slapped together in the
less than one week since the concept became visible here.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
I still haven't seen any plan for how to handle our source obligation.
I cannot give you a plan if nobody outlines the obligations to me.
You need to speak to Fedora legal to figure out what your obligations are.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Why
is the DVD different than the other spins?
All the other things the project produces are made available on the
website in binary form, alongside the source. It is not clear to me if
your combined media set will be made available online in any way. It is
not clear to me if a binary aggregate of all the spins can be satisfied
by the sources we have online. It is not clear to me what method of
GPLv2 source obligations you will be using when distributing these
binary offerings.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
I wish it was.
I understand you are frustrated, but cheap shots like this aren't going
to make people any more likely to pay attention or help you.


- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-19 11:22:58 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
There is not going to be a TC2. We are moving on to RC.
Is this process documented in the wiki somewhere?
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-releng-tasks.html
is probably the best place, which was linked to from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Schedule
The list only memtions the Tc, but nether TC1 and TC2 not the fact that
TC2 does not include live media.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
It is FAR too
late to be introducing technology that needs to be tested and planned
for at this stage in the release cycle.
The only thing that needs testing is the boot menu. The rest is taken
care of by the normal spins/desktop testing we already do and did.
That's still something that needs testing, needs a testing plan, needs
coordination. Not something that can easily be slapped together in the
less than one week since the concept became visible here.
What is there to test for a boot menu? What would a test plan look like.
Boot all menu entries and you are done.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
I still haven't seen any plan for how to handle our source obligation.
I cannot give you a plan if nobody outlines the obligations to me.
You need to speak to Fedora legal to figure out what your obligations are.
I have written them but no reply so far.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Why is the DVD different than the other spins?
All the other things the project produces are made available on the
website in binary form, alongside the source. It is not clear to me if
your combined media set will be made available online in any way.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Given that [...]
* we have download location for the image on Fedora
infrastructure
* we put a readme on the spin whith the download location of
the SRPMs
Is there anything unclear about it?
It is
not clear to me if a binary aggregate of all the spins can be satisfied
by the sources we have online. It is not clear to me what method of
GPLv2 source obligations you will be using when distributing these
binary offerings.
This sounds a little vague to me. Can you please outline your concerns a
little deeper? AFAICS they apply to the other spins too as they also
have a boot menu.

What is the difference between shipping 8 single media and one dual
layer DVD? The only difference is the boot menu.

Please correct me if I'm wrong,
Christoph
Jesse Keating
2010-10-19 16:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
There is not going to be a TC2. We are moving on to RC.
Is this process documented in the wiki somewhere?
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-releng-tasks.html
is probably the best place, which was linked to from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Schedule
The list only memtions the Tc, but nether TC1 and TC2 not the fact that
TC2 does not include live media.
It mentions TC because there is only one Test Compose that is scheduled.
Any additional test composes would be out of the normal and unplanned
for. It isn't a case that TC2 does not include live, it's a case that
there is no TC2.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
It is FAR too
late to be introducing technology that needs to be tested and planned
for at this stage in the release cycle.
The only thing that needs testing is the boot menu. The rest is taken
care of by the normal spins/desktop testing we already do and did.
That's still something that needs testing, needs a testing plan, needs
coordination. Not something that can easily be slapped together in the
less than one week since the concept became visible here.
What is there to test for a boot menu? What would a test plan look like.
Boot all menu entries and you are done.
Have you attempted doing installs from each booted system? What if
somebody tries to make a USB device out of that iso? The testing might
be easy, but my point is that QA has no test plan for it, nor have they
allocated resources or time to execute the test plan in order to pass or
fail this offering. To try and get time to validate a test plan, no
matter how easy it is, and to get time allocated to produce release
candidates, distribute them, and execute the test plan at this point is
really asking for too much. We're under the gun to get our already
planned for test execution complete on time. Adding more will not help.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
I still haven't seen any plan for how to handle our source obligation.
I cannot give you a plan if nobody outlines the obligations to me.
You need to speak to Fedora legal to figure out what your obligations are.
I have written them but no reply so far.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Why is the DVD different than the other spins?
All the other things the project produces are made available on the
website in binary form, alongside the source. It is not clear to me if
your combined media set will be made available online in any way.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Given that [...]
* we have download location for the image on Fedora
infrastructure
* we put a readme on the spin whith the download location of
the SRPMs
Is there anything unclear about it?
Sorry, I missed that. Fedora Infrastructure approved an additional 8~
gig iso to be hosted and mirrored?
Post by Christoph Wickert
It is
not clear to me if a binary aggregate of all the spins can be satisfied
by the sources we have online. It is not clear to me what method of
GPLv2 source obligations you will be using when distributing these
binary offerings.
This sounds a little vague to me. Can you please outline your concerns a
little deeper? AFAICS they apply to the other spins too as they also
have a boot menu.
What is the difference between shipping 8 single media and one dual
layer DVD? The only difference is the boot menu.
You are correct that there is little difference between this and others.
It has been an agenda item of mine for quite some time now to revisit
how we do physical media offerings under the name of Fedora. It is of
my opinion that we are not doing them correctly, but I am not a lawyer,
and I haven't had the time to take it up with Fedora Legal as of yet.

- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-21 12:50:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
There is not going to be a TC2. We are moving on to RC.
Is this process documented in the wiki somewhere?
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-14/f-14-releng-tasks.html
is probably the best place, which was linked to from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Schedule
The list only memtions the Tc, but nether TC1 and TC2 not the fact that
TC2 does not include live media.
It mentions TC because there is only one Test Compose that is scheduled.
Any additional test composes would be out of the normal and unplanned
for. It isn't a case that TC2 does not include live, it's a case that
there is no TC2.
Thanks for the explanation. This basically means that my initial
questions still stands: Is this documented somewhere in the wiki?
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
It is FAR too
late to be introducing technology that needs to be tested and planned
for at this stage in the release cycle.
The only thing that needs testing is the boot menu. The rest is taken
care of by the normal spins/desktop testing we already do and did.
That's still something that needs testing, needs a testing plan, needs
coordination. Not something that can easily be slapped together in the
less than one week since the concept became visible here.
What is there to test for a boot menu? What would a test plan look like.
Boot all menu entries and you are done.
Have you attempted doing installs from each booted system?
I only tested my Spins (Xfce and LXDE), but David Nalley reported he had
installed them all successfully. I did not expect another results
because we are dealing with something that was (should have been)
already tested. The only difference is the boot catalog.
Post by Jesse Keating
What if somebody tries to make a USB device out of that iso?
Honestly I haven't tried, but as long as we don't say it is a supported
use case, we don't have to support it. What if somebody tries that with
our install DVDs? Do we test and guarantee that it works?
Post by Jesse Keating
The testing might
be easy, but my point is that QA has no test plan for it, nor have they
allocated resources or time to execute the test plan in order to pass or
fail this offering.
Speaking of testing and resources: Where is the test plan for the spins
ans where are the results? AFAICS there are none, at least according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fedora_14_Test_Results only the
installation of the desktop live media has been tested.
Post by Jesse Keating
To try and get time to validate a test plan, no
matter how easy it is, and to get time allocated to produce release
candidates, distribute them, and execute the test plan at this point is
really asking for too much. We're under the gun to get our already
planned for test execution complete on time. Adding more will not help.
I would love to help here, unfortunately processes are poorly
documented, so it's hard to step in.
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
I still haven't seen any plan for how to handle our source obligation.
I cannot give you a plan if nobody outlines the obligations to me.
You need to speak to Fedora legal to figure out what your obligations are.
I have written them but no reply so far.
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
Why is the DVD different than the other spins?
All the other things the project produces are made available on the
website in binary form, alongside the source. It is not clear to me if
your combined media set will be made available online in any way.
Post by Christoph Wickert
Given that [...]
* we have download location for the image on Fedora
infrastructure
* we put a readme on the spin whith the download location of
the SRPMs
Is there anything unclear about it?
Sorry, I missed that. Fedora Infrastructure approved an additional 8~
gig iso to be hosted and mirrored?
They will definitely not approve another 6 GB if it needs to be
mirrored, but I don't see why it needs to be mirrored. We are not doing
this for the other spins ether.
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
Post by Jesse Keating
It is
not clear to me if a binary aggregate of all the spins can be satisfied
by the sources we have online. It is not clear to me what method of
GPLv2 source obligations you will be using when distributing these
binary offerings.
This sounds a little vague to me. Can you please outline your concerns a
little deeper? AFAICS they apply to the other spins too as they also
have a boot menu.
What is the difference between shipping 8 single media and one dual
layer DVD? The only difference is the boot menu.
You are correct that there is little difference between this and others.
It has been an agenda item of mine for quite some time now to revisit
how we do physical media offerings under the name of Fedora. It is of
my opinion that we are not doing them correctly, but I am not a lawyer,
and I haven't had the time to take it up with Fedora Legal as of yet.
Ok, there is little difference, nevertheless you bring this up. Same
with the other concerns:
* You demand test cases although none of the spins has any special
test case.
* You demand QA although we are not doing it for other spins
ether.
* You ask for mirroring although other spins are not mirrored
ether.

In this discussion, you and some board members suddenly seem to set
higher standards for the multi desktop DVD than for any other spin that
was ever approved. This leaves a bitter taste behind: While there may be
valid concerns, most arguments look like lame excuses to me. I have the
feeling that the board wants to anticipate a great feature that would
really make live of the ambassadors easier and be a great benefit to
Fedora. This way of treating the volunteer contributors will seriously
damage our community.

Regards,
Christoph
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-19 11:08:14 UTC
Permalink
* The prototype is available for three
weeks now at http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/torrents/ -
please test!
We will make an F14 dual layer version once live images of TC2
are available.
An updated image is now available at the linked location. Please get it
tested and raise any technical concerns you have.

TIA,
Christoph
Jesse Keating
2010-10-19 16:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
* The prototype is available for three
weeks now at http://sspreitzer.fedorapeople.org/torrents/ -
please test!
We will make an F14 dual layer version once live images of TC2
are available.
An updated image is now available at the linked location. Please get it
tested and raise any technical concerns you have.
Where are the tools used to produce this? If Fedora project is going to
create and distribute these, the tooling and process needs to be part of
the release engineering process, and done at the same time as the rest
of the release materials.

I quite honestly do not have the time to integrate yet another
deliverable into our release process now. We're already at the release
candidate phase.

- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Bill Nottingham
2010-10-19 20:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
An updated image is now available at the linked location. Please get it
tested and raise any technical concerns you have.
Where are the tools used to produce this? If Fedora project is going to
create and distribute these, the tooling and process needs to be part of
the release engineering process, and done at the same time as the rest
of the release materials.
I quite honestly do not have the time to integrate yet another
deliverable into our release process now. We're already at the release
candidate phase.
Well, do Ambassadors distribute Unity respins from time to time? Would this
fall into that category?

Basically, it would be good to separate 'is this an approved use of the
trademark' vs. 'is this an idea that could be done better'.

Bill
Jesse Keating
2010-10-19 21:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Nottingham
Post by Jesse Keating
Post by Christoph Wickert
An updated image is now available at the linked location. Please get it
tested and raise any technical concerns you have.
Where are the tools used to produce this? If Fedora project is going to
create and distribute these, the tooling and process needs to be part of
the release engineering process, and done at the same time as the rest
of the release materials.
I quite honestly do not have the time to integrate yet another
deliverable into our release process now. We're already at the release
candidate phase.
Well, do Ambassadors distribute Unity respins from time to time? Would this
fall into that category?
The tools they use are in Fedora proper.
Post by Bill Nottingham
Basically, it would be good to separate 'is this an approved use of the
trademark' vs. 'is this an idea that could be done better'.
You're correct. Since I'm not on the board, most of my argument here
was about "do we have time to do this for Fedora 14" which wasn't really
an asked question, but was an assumption that there was time. I'm
saying that it's entirely too late to do this for Fedora 14 regardless
of the trademark decision.

- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Bruno Wolff III
2010-10-19 21:41:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 14:33:33 -0700,
Post by Jesse Keating
You're correct. Since I'm not on the board, most of my argument here
was about "do we have time to do this for Fedora 14" which wasn't really
an asked question, but was an assumption that there was time. I'm
saying that it's entirely too late to do this for Fedora 14 regardless
of the trademark decision.
They would still have the option of creating a remix. If they are mostly
interested in handing out physical copies as opposed to providing
visibility on the official download pages, that should work out OK.
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-21 13:20:02 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by Bill Nottingham
Well, do Ambassadors distribute Unity respins from time to time? Would this
fall into that category?
The tools they use are in Fedora proper.
So are ours.

Regards,
Christoph
Stephen John Smoogen
2010-10-22 04:01:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 07:20, Christoph Wickert
Post by Christoph Wickert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by Bill Nottingham
Well, do Ambassadors distribute Unity respins from time to time? Would this
fall into that category?
The tools they use are in Fedora proper.
So are ours.
I am going to 'git pull' this conversation to fast forward over the
next 8 emails.

1. Am not
2. Are too
3. Am NOT
4. ARE TOO
5. AM NOT!
6. Can we get rid of range voting
7. That is not on topic for this thread, you want the election thread.
8. ARE TOO!!1!!1

Now that is done, can we get to the general issue.. what are we going to do.

A) It is given this is a project that release engineering, spins, and
qa needed to be apprised of in August/September and should have been
on the spins system back at final feature readiness. It does not
matter if its a 5 line patch, it is asking a bunch of people already
overloaded for yet another last minute hail-mary from some other
group.

B) This is something that various ambassadors have been working on and
thought it would be a great way to show off various other groups work.
It may turn out to be a great showcase for F14.

C) This is really not a separate spin IF none of the sub-spins are
changed from their final F14 products. It is more like a special remix
of spins.

I think that if C is true, then we can work out a way through this cruft.
I) Releng and QA are only going to be testing/validating the
sub-spins. They will not be working on this remix beyond anything they
want to volunteer.
II) The Board will be giving approval for the use of trademarks in
this 'special remix' on the boot menu and that this is a product that
Fedora Ambassadors canl hand out or 'burning' to USB keys as
'officially sanctioned Fedora material'.
III) The whole spins, spin of spins, live media, etc will be revisited
and reworked in to the F15/F16 time frames by FESCO and the Board.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-22 08:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Am Donnerstag, den 21.10.2010, 22:01 -0600 schrieb Stephen John
Post by Stephen John Smoogen
Now that is done, can we get to the general issue.. what are we going to do.
A) It is given this is a project that release engineering, spins, and
qa needed to be apprised of in August/September and should have been
on the spins system back at final feature readiness.
By definition it is not a spin and nether a feature, therefor the
spins/feature schedule does not apply. It is just a media for
distribution by the ambassadors and we did follow the schedule for media
production - at least until we got delayed by one or the other Fedora
body.
Post by Stephen John Smoogen
It does not
matter if its a 5 line patch, it is asking a bunch of people already
overloaded for yet another last minute hail-mary from some other
group.
The ambassadors can take care of everything, it only affects two other
groups:
Infrastructure needs to host (not mirror) it.
The board needs to approve it.
Post by Stephen John Smoogen
B) This is something that various ambassadors have been working on and
thought it would be a great way to show off various other groups work.
It may turn out to be a great showcase for F14.
+1
Post by Stephen John Smoogen
C) This is really not a separate spin IF none of the sub-spins are
changed from their final F14 products. It is more like a special remix
of spins.
+1
Post by Stephen John Smoogen
I think that if C is true, then we can work out a way through this cruft.
I) Releng and QA are only going to be testing/validating the
sub-spins. They will not be working on this remix beyond anything they
want to volunteer.
They don't *need* to test/validate anything, this has already been taken
care of by the individual spins or the ambassadors.
Post by Stephen John Smoogen
II) The Board will be giving approval for the use of trademarks in
this 'special remix' on the boot menu and that this is a product that
Fedora Ambassadors canl hand out or 'burning' to USB keys as
'officially sanctioned Fedora material'.
Well, *hopefully* the board will approve it. So far they haven't and it
will be at least one more week until they do.
Post by Stephen John Smoogen
III) The whole spins, spin of spins, live media, etc will be revisited
and reworked in to the F15/F16 time frames by FESCO and the Board.
+1. I hope this time the board involves the spins SIG and the spin owner
better than last time when they redefined our target audience.

Regards,
Christoph
Stephen John Smoogen
2010-10-22 17:37:21 UTC
Permalink
I am finding myself unable to reply in a rational voice at the moment
so will be abstaining further from this conversation.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
inode0
2010-10-23 15:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen John Smoogen
I am finding myself unable to reply in a rational voice at the moment
so will be abstaining further from this conversation.
I am finding myself not knowing who to reply to so I'll reply to
someone who won't reply back.

Ambassdors can distribute "unofficial" media as long as it is clear to
those receiving it what exactly it is. It seems to me that it might be
best to make this on the side for F14, distribute it in places and see
how the user community likes it. I expect it will be very popular, but
getting real feedback carries a lot more weight than my hunch does.

Armed with positive feedback from real users, experience making and
distributing the new media, and discovery of any glitches that come up
that we can't foresee now will put us in a very good position to make
the case in a timely manner to get this included in F15 as official
media.

It is a great idea and we can move forward to make it happen without
letting ourselves get overly discouraged by reservations that exist at
F14 release time. Let's shoot for proving that we have great execution
of this idea during F14 and use that to move us toward making it
official media for F15.

John
Rex Dieter
2010-10-23 15:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by inode0
Ambassdors can distribute "unofficial" media as long as it is clear to
those receiving it what exactly it is. It seems to me that it might be
best to make this on the side for F14, distribute it in places and see
how the user community likes it. I expect it will be very popular, but
getting real feedback carries a lot more weight than my hunch does.
I've been mulling over similar thoughts, but was having some trouble
articulating it. I can support this idea whole-heartedly.

-- Rex
Mike McGrath
2010-10-24 00:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rex Dieter
Post by inode0
Ambassdors can distribute "unofficial" media as long as it is clear to
those receiving it what exactly it is. It seems to me that it might be
best to make this on the side for F14, distribute it in places and see
how the user community likes it. I expect it will be very popular, but
getting real feedback carries a lot more weight than my hunch does.
I've been mulling over similar thoughts, but was having some trouble
articulating it. I can support this idea whole-heartedly.
I'm not sure what the 'unofficial' fedora world looks like but I know in
the official Fedora world, if it's going to be physical media we
distribute to people at shows and stuff.... If it wasn't ready for the
alpha, I don't know why we'd even entertain the idea of doing it for the
final.

-Mike
Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
2010-10-24 11:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

my opinion is:

1. There is no legal/contract/agreement/signed thing as of law
requirements, that any contributor must obey board decisions
( As the fedora project is no incorporation of any form the, Fedora
board is not put into force of any legal form or body. )
( FP members/contributors have not signed any contract/agreement which
puts any force upon them. )

2. There is no legal requirement that EMEA ambassadors are in the need
of any approval at all.

= EMEA Ambassadors proceeding with their freedom of contribution ->
spread media as they wish

PS.:
One might argue the force to decide this comes with the trademark
rights, which are involved.
But, then it would be clear, it is a RedHat decision.

best wishes,
Sascha
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / with kind regards,
Sascha Thomas Spreitzer

http://spreitzer.name/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sspreitzer

Warum mache ich überhaupt dieses ganze OpenSource Zeugs?
Lesen Sie hier, warum;
http://de.windows7sins.org/
Matt Domsch
2010-10-24 18:09:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
Post by Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
Hello,
1. There is no legal/contract/agreement/signed thing as of law
requirements, that any contributor must obey board decisions
( As the fedora project is no incorporation of any form the, Fedora
board is not put into force of any legal form or body. )
( FP members/contributors have not signed any contract/agreement which
puts any force upon them. )
Volunteer projects rarely have the cooperation of its participants
through use of legal force. Cooperation, concensus-building, and the
desire by the participants to achieve a common goal all direct our
actions, even when we might appear at odds.
Post by Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
2. There is no legal requirement that EMEA ambassadors are in the need
of any approval at all.
This is not a "Board vs Ambassadors" fight, and I object to the
trivial characterization thereof. It does not benefit anyone to look
at this through that clouded lens. We are both trying to achieve the
same goals, the only serious concern being the timing to introduce
this new method of software delivery.

No one thinks what Christoph suggested is a bad idea - on the
contrary, it's very interesting. The only concern is that this change
is coming very late in our release cycle, and it is directly in the
critical path of the user experience we currently deliver, the
combination of the two is why the Board and other teams have been
hesitant to jump in wholeheartedly.
Post by Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
= EMEA Ambassadors proceeding with their freedom of contribution ->
spread media as they wish
The Project as a whole has funds which are used by the Ambassadors to
create media. While some Ambassador teams may produce their own media
with their own private funds, I believe that the majority of the funds
used to produce media to give away come from the Project's Community
Architecture budget. Therefore it is in the best interest of the
Project as a whole to ensure that the media, in many ways our "best
first impression" for users, be a well-thought-out and prepared user
experience. I don't personally think it's a good idea for different
sets of Ambassadors to produce wildly different media, all under the
same name of Fedora. If, as Christoph has found out, the price for
dual-layer DVDs has fallen to the point where we can easily make use
of that technology to provide an enhanced user experience, we
absolutely should look at what that experience should be. The
proposal on the table is quick and simple - I grant it that, but if we
really have 9GB to work with, the "choose your desktop environment at
boot time" model isn't the one I'd naturally gravitate towards. I'd
much prefer to see a well-integrated environment, where at runtime the
user can choose their desktop environment trivially, and through the
reduction of space taken up by duplicate RPMs from the different
squashfs images, be able to showcase more applications directly.

Thanks,
Matt
Joerg Simon
2010-10-25 07:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
1. There is no legal/contract/agreement/signed thing as of law
requirements, that any contributor must obey board decisions
( As the fedora project is no incorporation of any form the, Fedora
board is not put into force of any legal form or body. )
( FP members/contributors have not signed any contract/agreement which
puts any force upon them. )
I want to clarify, that the motivation to create this product maybe come
from the wish to hand a multi-desktop DVD out, as a Ambassador on an Event.

But the issue itself is a engineering issue, i think this is the reason
FAmSCo was not involved in this. If the People which are charge in the
Steering Comitees or Board make a decission and things have a clear
reason, i do not think we always have to struggle and fight with them to
protect our own interests. It is not about law enforcement - a
community is also build of respect. Everyone is free to run for the
Board and participate.
Post by Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
2. There is no legal requirement that EMEA ambassadors are in the need
of any approval at all.
= EMEA Ambassadors proceeding with their freedom of contribution ->
spread media as they wish
I am a Ambassador from EMEA and i distance myself from this claim! This
is against the concept of the Fedora Project.

Of course there is no "legal" requirement. But i expect that if we trust
Contributors with ressources, that they use it in a way that is in
consensus with the bodies who are in charge.

cu Joerg

Sascha, i tried to learn and explain you how the Fedora Project works, i
will not go through this once again!
--
Joerg (kital) Simon
***@fedoraproject.org
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JoergSimon
http://kitall.blogspot.com
Key Fingerprint:
3691 0989 2DCA 58A2 8D1F 2CAC C823 558E 5B5B 5688
Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
2010-10-25 08:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Hello everyone,
Post by Joerg Simon
Post by Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
2. There is no legal requirement that EMEA ambassadors are in the need
of any approval at all.
= EMEA Ambassadors proceeding with their freedom of contribution ->
spread media as they wish
I am a Ambassador from EMEA and i distance myself from this claim! This
is against the concept of the Fedora Project.
Of course there is no "legal" requirement. But i expect that if we trust
Contributors with ressources, that they use it in a way that is in
consensus with the bodies who are in charge.
Christoph pretty much explained and outlined in an understandable way
why this doesn't need any Board involvement or decision at all. I am
in consensus with Christoph and others here and I like the Idea to do
this for F14, because it is doable with almost no efforts.

Regarding my special opinion about FP and the bodies in charge, please
nevermind it. It's very critical.

best wishes,
Sascha
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / with kind regards,
Sascha Thomas Spreitzer

http://spreitzer.name/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sspreitzer

Warum mache ich überhaupt dieses ganze OpenSource Zeugs?
Lesen Sie hier, warum;
http://de.windows7sins.org/
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-25 09:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
Christoph pretty much explained and outlined in an understandable way
why this doesn't need any Board involvement or decision at all.
Hi Sascha,

this must be a misunderstanding. I said that I and the other
ambassadors *were* *not* *aware* that we need the approval to use the
trademark. I think we *do* need the approval because it is a "New
combination[s] of unmodified Fedora software" [1]. I doubt that
anybody had a project like this DVD in mind when this paragraph was
written, but still the wording is clear. We can't do anything about
it, it's on the board to decide and I hope they will do this today or
at least give us clear instructions how to proceed.

Even though I'm not the most diplomatic person and some of my replies
in this thread are controversial, I still want to do this *with* the
board and not against them.

Regards,
Christoph
Sascha Thomas Spreitzer
2010-10-25 09:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
Hi Sascha,
this must be a misunderstanding.  I said that I and the other
ambassadors *were* *not* *aware* that we need the approval to use the
trademark.  I think we *do* need the approval because it is a "New
combination[s] of unmodified Fedora software" [1].  I doubt that
anybody had a project like this DVD in mind when this paragraph was
written, but still the wording is clear.  We can't do anything about
it, it's on the board to decide and I hope they will do this today or
at least give us clear instructions how to proceed.
Even though I'm not the most diplomatic person and some of my replies
in this thread are controversial, I still want to do this *with* the
board and not against them.
Ah ok, thanks chris.

Do we have the approval for F14 or F15?
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / with kind regards,
Sascha Thomas Spreitzer

http://spreitzer.name/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sspreitzer

Warum mache ich überhaupt dieses ganze OpenSource Zeugs?
Lesen Sie hier, warum;
http://de.windows7sins.org/
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-25 07:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike McGrath
I'm not sure what the 'unofficial' fedora world looks like but I know in
the official Fedora world, if it's going to be physical media we
distribute to people at shows and stuff....  If it wasn't ready for the
alpha, I don't know why we'd even entertain the idea of doing it for the
final.
Because the media we distribute are always late: There are no physical
media at the time of alpha and often they are late for the release
too. The phsical media follow a different schedule than spins or
features and we were in time for this schedule until we got delayed.

Regards,
Christoph
Christoph Wickert
2010-10-21 12:57:30 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Post by Christoph Wickert
An updated image is now available at the linked location. Please get it
tested and raise any technical concerns you have.
Where are the tools used to produce this?
On every Fedora media and in our repos. They are called coreutils, grub,
mkisofs and vi (or any other editor of your choice).
If Fedora project is going to
create and distribute these, the tooling and process needs to be part of
the release engineering process, and done at the same time as the rest
of the release materials.
It's only ~ 10 commands. You want a howto in the wiki?
I quite honestly do not have the time to integrate yet another
deliverable into our release process now. We're already at the release
candidate phase.
I know and I'm really sorry for that. As this effort was done by
volunteers, we all have our dayjobs. Another problem that it took
FAMSCo to long to give us a statement on the budget. I have to admit
that we did start late, but it was not us who delayed everything.

Regards,
Christoph
Tom "spot" Callaway
2010-10-21 14:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christoph Wickert
I know and I'm really sorry for that. As this effort was done by
volunteers, we all have our dayjobs. Another problem that it took
FAMSCo to long to give us a statement on the budget. I have to admit
that we did start late, but it was not us who delayed everything.
At this point in time, I think it would be appropriate for the F14 based
version of this to be branded as a Fedora Remix, and we should focus the
current discussion around consideration of this target format as a
formal Fedora target for the F15 release cycle.

~spot
Matt Domsch
2010-10-21 14:51:08 UTC
Permalink
A number of concerns have been raised, I'd like to see these closed
out.

* It's coming in way late. This I agree with, and it may be enough to
be a showstopper for this release. But it doesn't have to be, if
rel-eng isn't expected to produce it, and if QA isn't expected to
test it. Aside from being possible now, here is nothing put forward
that would prevent this from being held until the F15 release, like
we do with other "features" - and I do think changing the
delivery model can be considered a feature change.

* Forget about calling this a remix. If we want our ambassadors to
hand this out at events, EMEA or elsewhere, it needs to be produced
by and for the Project as a whole. The EMEA ambassadors may be the
actors getting the ISOs pressed, and they may be the ones doing to
ISO creation and testing, but the end result must be a
Project-produced item, not treated like a 3rd-party produced item.

* GNOME vs Desktop naming, seems resolved or easily resolvable. Mo is
right though that we would want to see a good user experience, and
that being late lends itself to a more hasty, and possibly
sub-optimal experience. Given that the design team has had a hand
in producing the other sleeves and labels, it's fair to include them
in the production of such for this too (I could digress into
unfunded mandates here, when it's late in the cycle and everyone is
stressed...)

* Source distribution. This is an aggregation of the existing spin
images, so there are no _new_ obligations. Source is in the
Everything/ tree, and in git. We don't currently publish an ISO of
SRPMS corresponding to the contents of the other spins. I do still
encourage people to add their srpm lists to the correspondingsource
git tree on fedorahosted though.

* I'd argue that having QA test it is important. I agree the test plan
need not be huge and complex, and need not duplicate all the other
testing of the individual spins, but some formal test plan, covering
the difference between the existing spins and this, is critical.
And someone needs to both write the test plan, and find the manpower
to carry out those tests. (I could digress into unfunded mandates
here, when it's late in the cycle and everyone is stressed...)

* I don't see a need for Infrastructure to host the ISO for
downloadability, but I think we could. It's 5.2GB, which could pose
a problem in our serving environment (files > 4GB tend to cause
problems for apache), but alt.fp.o is currently running x86_64
apache, which should not have a problem with large files.

* How will liveusb-creator handle being given this image? Will it
still work? It doesn't have to, but it'd be nice to know if it'll
break...


So, my gut feeling is, this is possible, but way late, and is
introducing stress into the system exactly when it shouldn't be.
Could we pull it off? Likely yes. Will it be bumpy? Likely yes (as
this conversation has already shown).

Christoph, how can you and others help alleviate these stresses, so to
produce this now, rather than waiting for F15?

Thanks,
Matt
Loading...