On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:24 PM Leigh Griffin <lgrif...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:44 PM Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:45 AM Adam Williamson >> <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> > > > Some failure of process or communication must have occurred >> > > > somewhere along the lines, because open source should have been the >> > > > first and most important requirement. A proprietary software >> > > > solution is incompatible with the ethos and purpose of the Fedora >> > > > project. I ask CPE to revise its requirements list to include open >> > > > source as the first and most important requirement from the Fedora >> > > > community. If that's incompatible with CentOS's need for merge >> > > > request approvals or whatever else, then we need to accept that >> > > > sharing the same forge is simply not going to work. >> > > >> > > Obviously open source is one of our key foundations. And it is part of >> > > who >> > > we are even before those foundations were drafted. Nonetheless, I want to >> > > gently discuss this a little bit. We make an entirely open source and >> > > free >> > > software operating system. We support and promote and advocate for open >> > > source and free content. But we can't do everything, and at some point, >> > > this >> > > becomes "this is why we can't have nice things". I see that you've made >> > > contributions to other open source projects on GitHub and (hosted) GitLab >> > > this month. Lots of Fedora contributors have and will continue to do so. >> > > Many use that as their main hosting. It's not ideal, but it's not the >> > > end of >> > > the world. I don't see Fedora making use of non-open hosted services as >> > > the >> > > end of the world either, if that is what is best for us. >> > > >> > > We did communicate as the very top line of our gathered requirements that >> > > open source is essential to our community and central to our feedback. >> > > I'm >> > > not trying to be soft on that. Let's just not do purity-test level >> > > assessments and instead focus on our goals. >> > >> > I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Kevin and Michael here to a >> > significant extent. Running our own project on open source code has >> > always been a very big bright line for Fedora. >> > >> > I'm not necessarily saying it's a hill we should die on, but at the >> > very least, choosing a proprietary hosted solution for something as >> > fundamental as our dist-git needs to be treated as a Very Big Deal and >> > needs to be a decision that is handled a *lot* better than this one has >> > been handled. >> > >> > You said in another email that the tooling choice ultimately has to be >> > largely made by the team that is responsible for the work and it >> > wouldn't really work for Council to order them to do something they >> > can't practically do, and I see the truth in that, but at the same time >> > I think there has to be a balance there. Does this "the team decides >> > what works for them" principle extend as far as the team being able to >> > choose unilaterally to go against principles Fedora has been working >> > very hard to maintain for about as long as it has existed, and that are >> > listed right up there front and centre as our Foundations? That, to me, >> > seems like a decision that Council ought at the very least to be deeply >> > involved in - much more than seems to have been the case here (which >> > seems to have been that we wrote up some requirements and sent them off >> > to "the team", which smooshed them into some kind of summary and then >> > made a decision - a decision which seems to have had a rather confused >> > context, as various people don't seem to be on the same page about >> > whether a choice was supposed to be made about "dist-git", or >> > "pagure.io", or "Pagure", or CentOS's or Red Hat's use of Pagure, or >> > any or all of these things somehow smooshed together). >> > >> > I think if I turned up tomorrow and said that QA had decided we're >> > going to use a proprietary hosted service for managing release >> > validation testing there would be significant pushback against that, >> > and I think that pushback would be valid, and I'm not sure it would be >> > appropriate for us to say "tough, we made that decision so that's >> > what's happening". I don't think it's necessarily appropriate for that >> > to happen here either. >> > >> > I understand there are practical resource considerations and so on >> > here, but I still think this merits more high level and serious >> > consideration. At the very least, if we have somehow reached a point >> > where Red Hat is no longer willing to provide sufficient resources to >> > run Fedora on the lines the Fedora community wants it to be run, we >> > need to recognize that this is a significant problem that needs to be >> > properly aired and discussed and resolved. In this context I'll note >> > that the apparent significant headcount reduction of RH people working >> > on Fedora infrastructure over the last few years is in itself a >> > worrying trend, particularly if you consider it while reading Clement's >> > email. >> > >> > I think Iñaki's take on the "oh, you contribute to Github projects so >> > no problem right?" angle is correct. >> >> I concur with this, in its entirety. >> >> Lack of resources might supercede an open source requirement. But if >> that is really the choice, that itself exposes a far bigger problem: >> all other projects being maintained by CPE and Fedora Infrastructure >> team are at risk. > > > There is no doubt that they are at risk. We cannot sustain the level of > commitment to the volume of projects we have. The lights on work for just the > Fedora side is consuming over 50% of our team. That's pure firefighting, > responding to tickets and fixing problems with very little time to pay down > some of the debt that is causing the problems in the first place. The team is > spread too thin on just the Fedora commitments before we consider the fact > the team has another distribution in CentOS under our remit as well. The > reality is that most applications are constantly under risk, if a person goes > on PTO or leaves the team / company, we lose domain knowledge. This has > happened in the past year and will happen in the future. Part of how we are > structuring our work is to reduce our overhead, cross train the team, get > smarter on what we invest our time and effort into in order to provide real > value, not fighting fires constantly. That might sound alarmist, but it's the > reality that the team are living day to day.
Would it be possible to publish the list of applications that the CPE maintains / runs? I think having that information might lead to a better conversation around what services can be replaced and/or shut down. Right now, I don't have the foggiest idea what 75% of those applications you run actually are, which makes this discussion a bit hard. Fabio > > >> >> Why can't half or even all of them be rolled up into >> proprietary equivalents and handed off for some other company to >> manage? What's next? >> >> This is awkward, but not even 12 days ago the Council approved a new >> vision statement: >> >> The Fedora Project envisions a world where everyone benefits from free >> and open source software built by inclusive, welcoming, and >> open-minded communities. >> >> I can't say for sure there is a conflict in the process used to arrive >> at the decision, but I'm questioning whether there is incongruity, and >> the nature of it. >> >> -- >> Chris Murphy >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > -- > > Leigh Griffin > > Engineering Manager > > Red Hat Waterford > > Communications House > > Cork Road, Waterford City > > lgrif...@redhat.com > M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin > > @redhatjobs redhatjobs @redhatjobs > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > 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@lists.fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
