 Okay. Thank you for coming. This is the Fedora Council session. It is scheduled for a really long time, and it will probably be up to you to see if my actual recording lasts a really long time. Do you need the mic to record? No, because I can speak loudly. Awesome. Okay. You can project. I can. There is no format for this talk. It's mostly an update. It's a panel type question-answer session. We'll probably give a little bit of an overview on the council itself, why we formed, why we're not going to do it again. And then these guys will kind of take over some of their objective stuff, possibly, and Matthew always has funny things to say. And then I will sit here and moderate. Oh, that's a lot of work. They might not be funny. I'll say things. We could forgive him because he's partially Amish. So, the council, last year Haikul and Toshio, who I don't believe is in this session. Oh, he has a top right now. So we had agitated for a while on taking the Fedora board and kind of re-implementing it, tearing it down, burning it to the ground, whatever you want to call it. We actually had the session at Flock. It was really packed. There was a lot of people there. A lot of good input and feedback. And then it took another six or seven months. That was two years ago, by the way. No, no, no. It was in Prague, wasn't it? It was in Charleston. No, it was in Prague. There was a talk about destroying the board in Charleston. Oh, okay. But the actual, like... Toshio won. Well, it took a long time to go. So it took another six months after Flock. It's really kind of four months. Well, it took four months to kill the board. Yeah. Let's get this done exactly right. We formed. That's the important thing. I think it's going to drink my coffee here. You'll be able to read about it in Drachma or Flock's when he does the research. I agree with you. Excellent. So, we formed. The whole premise behind it was the current board is kind of sitting and not doing a whole lot more like a Supreme Court type of thing, where people come to them with complaints or cases and we say, yeah, you're nay, or here's what you should do. Or sometimes a sort of oracle-like pronouncement about the future in a way that didn't really say yay or nay to anybody leading everybody very frustrated. Exactly. Yeah. It was not functional. We'll put it that way. And the idea behind the council is we want to be active. We want to be looking forward. You know, you've always got the, where are you seeing yourself in five years? Nobody really knows that. So we're not doing, like, five-year planning, but we are trying to be a little bit more proactive. What we want to see Fedora do, new initiatives coming forward, things that are coming in from the edge. You know, how can we take those and encourage them when they look really cool. And things like that. So since then, I think we've been fairly successful. We came up with the idea of objectives, which are the kind of, like, change requests for the entire project, basically. And would you even have one for additions? Sort of with a longer time frame than a change request, which kind of goes for one release. Yes. Sort of to have, and you're saying, like, not a five-year plan, but like an 18-month plan. Something we can see the end of it, but something we actually get done in a measurable way, we hope. Right. Absolutely. So additions was kind of like the first one. And it was already rolling. I mean, we can't just be like, oh, the council started additions. That's not true. But it was a great one to start with. So we came up with workstation cloud and server. You guys all know this. I think it's been fairly successful. Anybody up here? No, absolutely. What I've been seeing is that it really has galvanized the community to actually get up and do more at a community, at a full project level. Again, because, you know, we've got, you know, we had all these constituencies previously, but a lot of times they didn't feel like, well, that's only interesting to me. So I'm just going to maybe do my thing over here. But now that these constituencies all exist and all have a place to deliver, they're really coming up and talking more and pushing more. And I think that is true of all three in the server, the cloud and the workstation. I think that they all really have a place to have a voice. And that has definitely had a positive impact on the project as a whole. Yeah. So we have another one that's kind of in the works, outreach stuff for the university. No, not the university one. I mean, that one is. But no, the search committee for diversity. Yeah, so that's not set up as an objective, but it's in progress. We have a spot on the council for a diversity advisor position. And we have a search team for that. And that's going on. I think it's kind of on hold right now. I really want to travel for block, but it's at the point of actually accepting applicants for the position. And Marina in the back of the room here also is part of that committee. She's now funded by Red Hat to work in diversity at Red Hat and will be supporting that role or possibly in the role. And maybe a candidate for it as well. So we'll find one that Rummy is working on. And Langdon is doing something with modules and containers. Yeah. It's related to rings, but not exactly rings maybe. We haven't quite formed that yet. Well, you tell us what you're working on. Well, I'm a librarian on it, but let's get to that part. And then I am actually probably one of the only ones up here who doesn't have an objective that I'm smart. No measurable results needed. Right. Exactly. I'm actually the institute. You can say what we are, like our goals. Yeah. So one of the differences between the council and the board is that the board basically had nine members plus the FBL. That was the structure. And the FBL is the only position that had some sort of name or role or responsibility. Everybody was just kind of at large. And so the new structure has basically every seat is a name seat in some way or another. And that is different, I guess. The value of the portion of the project. Yeah. So everybody has something that, there's a reason for everybody on the council to be there in an area that they're responsible for, you know, not directing, but representing on the council. Yeah. So I am the engineering representative. So I kind of rail into the fiscal QA, which is actually probably the easiest job in the world. But I think, personally, I think it's been really interesting to do one of the things that we've been doing is, in some ways actually trying to, at least in my mind, right, actually trying to treat the council more like a company board in that you have kind of regular updates from important aspects of the organization so that you can kind of get a sense of where they're going and what they feel like you're going for and that kind of stuff. And so over the past whatever, several months, we've actually been doing, and we all hate to say it, but Google hangouts with kind of a presentation from the leadership of the various kind of sub portions of Fedora, which are taped in with, you know, sometimes we come up with some questions and talk to them about what they're doing next and that kind of stuff. We would really like to see, I think, more community participation in those, you know, so that both to kind of make more people aware of the kind of different facets of the organization, but also to bring, you know, difficult questions like what's the point, you know, of whatever this aspect is. And I really want to see us continue to do that so that there's ways that people can kind of get engaged with things that are not their normal purview, right, so that they can see what else is going on. And if they have good ideas, you know, they have a mechanism to feed that back into that group without actually having to commit to an area of expertise that you don't actually have. So I should also add there are people on this council who are not sitting up here today, it could be a block. Christoph Wecker is sort of the community representative area of the council, and that's kind of tied into the ambassadors, FAMSCO, FOSCO thing, which is all in the state of Limbo right now, and Remy is going to be working on helping to straighten that out. And then Rex Dieter is the elected representative as well. So we have two elected positions on board because people really felt that having that elected component was important as well. And are you elected as well? And then so the objective members, so basically the decision-making process is consensus-based. So we wanted, one of the reasons we're doing it that way, I think it's interesting communities to make decisions that way for one thing, but also because we wanted to have a small enough body to be functional but yet have different voices, have full representation. So rather than having to say, okay, in order for this to feel like the elected voices are meaningful, we need to have at least half the people be elected, making a 12 person or 20 person board. We wanted to make it so that the elected person has a full consensus role, so that the elected person feels like some decision we're making is way off the rails. They can say, stop this isn't going forward until we talk about it more. And we've got the process set up so that nothing can be stuck forever just based on one person being trying and hating something for no good justification. But if there's a really good justification for something, or a reasonable justification for something that needs to have more discussion, any council member can speak as a veto power which is different from the previous structure. And... Those of us who are on council exclusively have rejected the order. Right, yeah. So there's several elected positions and then there's several named positions. So Kristoff is like a named position, Rami is named position. We're talking about the diversity person being named position. There's two elected positions and then there are the objectives which in theory they're supposed to be like three or four of them where you have an objective lead and that person would also be a part of the council. But with only a veto power. And only for the life of that objective. So the program manager which is a hired role for Red Hat and Young Kirk is in that role right now is also a partial member so that role has veto power when it has to do with things like the schedule and things related to the program management role but not necessarily veto power or something unrelated to that aspect. And we've kind of left that nebulous about... We'll know when we see it. Your vote doesn't count for that, that's ridiculous. We'll see if that comes up. If this all sounds confusing, the council page on the wiki we're just kind of throwing out bits of it here. It's actually, I think, fairly well written. I may have written it myself so I might have some cognitive bias on that. But we wrote it together and that was actually pretty well laid out and I think it explains the structure pretty nicely. It's probably worth pointing out that for the past three minutes we've talked about windows. We've never actually had anybody veto anything. So it's more just lazy consensus. Yeah, and the thing that happened a lot previously with the board is it took a long time to get everybody together to vote on something and go anywhere. So one of the things right now, most decisions basically require only a couple pluses and no negatives in order to go forward as long as there's an adequate time for there to be discussion and so on. So that lets us move with things without having to wait for a whole heavy weight process. Although one thing I'd be curious about is especially if anyone in the room has put something to the council do you feel like it's moved appropriately? Not necessarily does it have to move as quickly as you would necessarily like but has it moved the way you would expect? So I don't know if anybody has any things like that to have examples. I think if Pusha was here he would be going too slowly. Just a little bit, yeah, but that's on. Since talking with him in block we've enforced the lazy consensus, right? So a ticket was filed on the council to say that students, so firstly, hi, I'm Remi. I'm the University Involvement Objectively. So I'm a academic. I come from the Eiger Tower. Here, Rochester's my hometown. Blue Rock City. Thank you everybody for coming. And I've been working at Rochester Institute of Technology for the last couple years to establish a FOS research and academic program and it eventually blossomed into the first minor in free open source software and free culture at a university in the United States. I spent the last two years teaching as a professor within the Department of Interactive Games and Media and I taught three out of the so many required courses that you need to do engineering and FOS development with one laptop or child program. I'm glad to see some sugar folks in the audience today as well as advanced projects course and the last course was a Business and Legal Environment FOS course where we helped to give students a survey of everything from IP and intellectual property to doing business case studies to analyze business models and figure out how to take their ideas, commercialize them, how to be involved in communities of practice with an important environment and how to do contract negotiation. What's an NDA? Not financial advice. I would write a disclaimer on the board every day with folks at folks like the Software Freedom Conservancy, the Law Center, the FSF, the EFF. We talked a lot about the great legal resources within the community. So with all of that context I'm used to doing stuff within the Agri Tower and the Pacelits there so I was really excited when the Council selected me to be a Dejective Leader Education. Professor Steve Jacobs has supported all the stuff that's been happening at RIT since the beginning and he came to the Council with this idea that said basically if students can get a letter inviting them to participate as volunteers then they can get official recognition and get internship credit within universities. So he came to the Council with a proposal maybe about a month ago or so. I think the ticket is a little over three weeks. He proposed that we come up with some kind of standard for door or a letterhead. We come up with somebody who's responsible for signing off on that stuff and that was about as far as it had got basically asking for a letter. So through the Council process we talked on the ticket, we came up with you know they need to have clear defined goals, they need to have a clearly defined mentor and they need to report back at the end of it and someone needs to say yes it's happening. So right on the track the Council came up with the process the thing was proposed and then we were kind of like waiting. Who shall comes back and he's like so is this a go or what and it had been a couple weeks and we said well nobody has objected anything it seems like everybody has chimed in so yeah let's do it. And that was a conversation we got to have at block in person and who shall was really like why haven't you closed this ticket yet. Sometimes lazy part. Initially when we started I wanted to not have meetings at all because I often feel like meetings don't connect to having getting things done very well but that turned out to not be working very well because you kind of need to have some sort of cadence for things. So that's how we started this. Basically our meeting slot is on Monday I forget what time it is in universal time it's 1pm in the eastern US which is my bias because I live there. So we do IRC meetings most of the time except for once a month we do a video meeting that is a check-in the claim was saying it was a sub-project and we're using Google Hangouts for that because there is as far as we know none of no other technology that will meet our needs of having it streaming live and also recorded and also handle a whole bunch of people at the same time. So we'd love to switch to open source for that if you want to work on that awesome but getting the meetings happening is a higher priority there and then one of the other meetings a month is basically a let's make sure we haven't dropped anything make sure that everything that's going on is at least moving on and isn't the idea that you shouldn't have to wait for that meeting to get something to happen but that's a checkpoint to make sure that we have no tickets that are sitting there languishing and then the other two meetings are basically just open floor whatever comes up we deal with it. So far it's worked out pretty well I think it's been engaging for the members of the council it's pretty exciting it's not just sitting in IRC. Helped me as someone who's kind of new to the project to see all the different pieces on a little longer maybe you're a little more jaded on it but I'm still that bright shiny new and excited guy who's like let's do all yet. I suspect that actually doesn't really change for you. Just a guess. Yeah, I've been around I was on the board in my process for getting one out. One of the best features of the council is that set of objectives that motive and imperative for the council to say to actually help set direction for where the tour project a wide spectrum is going for the next year or two I think yeah, it's a good idea for the next year or two and I think yeah, it's it's something that the tour project is always kind of black we've always been very reactive in a lot of ways you know, Fedora was a showcase of all the latest upstreams but its own identity was always a little fluid I think with the council the objectives were now starting to show what is Fedora's real identity and the idea of those objectives isn't necessarily that the council sits here and thinks up what the objective should be but we would like people with these ideas big ideas in Fedora to bring them to us and we'll try to connect the right people and make them into a whole idea the whole project to get behind Yes? So how does that work? Basically, there's a template for this is what the existing objective proposals look like you can also modify something you're interested in bring it to us and we'll talk about it and kind of bring it by the filing ticket Yeah, filing ticket is probably the best way to do that starting mailing list discussion beforehand if you don't feel like it's quite ready for a ticket and I really would like to see the project in general kind of focus a lot of our prioritization efforts around that so one of the questions you've heard this flock was how do we decide which talks get selected and a lot of it has been based on web voting which has its pluses and minuses I think it's an important form of feedback but one of the things I'd like to see is that talks which are aligned to one of these current objectives or about a new possible objective get priority for flock and same thing for Fedora Activity Days those things that are actually we already made that change Fedora Activity Days are things that put our project funds for people to get together and work on something and a priority is going to go to ones that fit to these existing objectives and so if you feel like that's not fair because you want to do something that's important that isn't aligned to one's objectives it might be a good idea to think about well how can I make this whole thing be actually one of the better objectives that the whole project is behind well first it would be always better to figure out if there's a way to get aligned existing objectives and of course there's always going to be room for some things but I want to make that the main focus for Joe So does that bring something to the council and say how does the council... Yeah so the question is is something that the project is interested in is it just the council or just that one person's idea or how do we decide whether this is the right model and again we're just kind of making this up as we go along so I don't think we have a lot of precedent for how to do that but I think first of all we want to make sure that these objectives are things that go towards the overall the overall objectives and the mission of Fedora so is this going to advance Fedora's distribution is this going to advance our mission of leading free and open source software and culture so if it's something that fits in line with that then that's the basic part for it I would like to point out that those questions that he's talking about right there are specifically part of the proposal process for the project and answers for those ahead of time that you have to be convinced and then I think the other thing is that we don't I think no one here is a manager we don't have the ability to assign people to work on things in Red Hat or especially not in the volunteer community so it's a great idea but there's nobody there's no enthusiasm for actually working on it it's probably not going to go anywhere we can't dictate that this is what's going to happen it's got to be something that it looks like there are people who are eager to work on it they just need to have permission they don't want to be told that no this isn't the right direction for the project and not just permission but that sort of collective vision and idea like this is something that the project has agreed that we're going to work on and then from the council give direction that this is something that we want to focus on one of the complaints about the Fedora next stuff with the three editions before the previous board had actually okayed that okay this is what we're going to do but there wasn't much of a message to the rest of the community that yeah the board has said that Fedora, you know, three products three editions is something that that's a Fedora thing it's official it was just it kind of first part of it seemed like yeah this is something that some people are doing in Fedora that is the whole project behind it and so this process is a way of making it clear that when we pick one of these things yeah this is something that the project collectively has agreed that we're behind this one other aspect is that the make up of the council is intended to try to represent all aspects of projects so therefore you know if you bring an objective to the council then in theory at least we can say you know unequivocally that this is something that the project wants to do in a kind of representative leadership sort of fashion so I guess that's kind of the other part of the question is that yeah there's still it's still a little fuzzy exactly how the decision gets made but in theory we have representatives that can take the positions of all the aspects of the program yeah that's a great point so I think it goes to what you're saying Joe about is this like a general decision so like Josh may have a personal opinion about something but he's representing basically the engineering side of all Fedora so has a responsibility in that decision to say is this something that engineering in general is behind and you know we trust him to tell us my answer is always it depends on what you ask we're asking you Josh but another thing to what they're saying is if you as a person bring something to the council we're probably going to look at it and say yeah that's cool but who's really going to work with me if a group of people who are already working towards something brings a project into the council that has a lot more weight to it so part of it is yeah we look at it we evaluate it but if somebody is already doing it oh that makes it much more enticing you want somebody to go do this make sure that you can focus on the thing these are our 13 priorities with regards to prioritization of all priorities you know half a dozen people come to you at the same time with groups of people doing stuff that would be amazing yeah like how do you prioritize by saying right sorry you lot but we're choosing these three and how do you deal with conflict resolution around that when it happens you will definitely you're asking us a really good question because we haven't planned yet I think the general answer to your theoretical question is if that ever happened it would be a really hard decision here's what we think here's why we think it the rest of you who didn't get an approved objective please don't stop working on that thing just realize it's not necessarily going to get full marketing full prioritization and I think a lot of that conflict won't actually get up to the council because I suspect that I guess though conflict resolution at some point but I suspect that by the time something is wrong to the size that we're considering it has a full on objective it probably has enough mass behind it that it's not really by the time it gets to the council it's more of a sign off than it is a decision so I would it's important I mean to give an example especially around conflict resolution like red hat might work on something internally like the nation's talking about yesterday and presumably that needs to go to the council and what happens if you know that somewhere lands and the community generally objects to it violently how do you plan on dealing with the council will be representing fedora's views irrelevant of whether they work for red hat I want to answer that like Danny said specifically yesterday that's how we have it so I want to answer the first question that you asked which was how do you deal with competing priorities I think what we're doing with the modularization proposal is a good example if it's something that goes over a really long period of time we're phasing them in so right now it's modularization phase one requirement so I think that scoping out if they were competing priorities scoping them out so that they don't so that they overlap in a way that makes sense right so if you're coming with an 18 month objective and there's 7 of them it doesn't really need to be 18 months can you scope it out so that it's actually a smaller amount of time and then you can stack things together that way it's overlapping ways to make sensors phased in over time so that's the way we've dealt with some of the I mean we've only had a few of these come up so far right so far that's the I realize because it's only been running it's only been placed a period of time and in some regard with regards to objectives in that the process is still coming along have we had a good cycle of priority like when prioritizing this one I'm not sure where we can why basically the Fedora additions objective that Steve's working on is coming to the end of its cycle now so one of the things I don't see it rising out of this conference so far but it would be kind of exciting if we came out of this out of block in the future at least with like wow we've got some ideas for what our next objectives would be Joe has one I have one I was just going to add I find it interesting you mentioned specifically these are the I mean we're not I mean it's a good point right that is the that's the expected plan that would be the next phases you know it's certainly going to be part of the and arguably we actually should have come earlier as a way to market the objective itself within Fedora Chris Roberts is one of the first folks to come and present in one of the all council meetings I think we as marketing well yeah the channels are open we're figuring it out I will push back a little bit because on the discussion about marketing materials and so on recently I definitely supposedly said let's make sure we have the Fedora editions represented as part of the marketing materials so I didn't necessarily connect that to the objective but I was thinking that in the communications especially the university thing you're working so we're going to cancel it before it gets to the end obviously you also you mean more about the process you also want to do a place of order as to why to make the decision to go down that route in the first place as a objective and what give you a very better in the future or what you know you can put it in place and make sure that it doesn't happen again yeah I think we're going to put together the plans to well sort of the plans to have plans we are eagerly looking forward to your proposal for how the process will be conducted yeah but I have to get an objective first right? I don't have to have an objective to do any work I want to make that absolutely clear objectives are high level goals that we feel the Fedora project is working towards does it not mean by any stretch of the imagination that you should not be working towards your own goals and working towards other projects no I realize that but I mean honestly you're picking 304 objectives to place it on at any one time right and by focus that means putting what little resources we have in terms of people and influence and you know funding for FADS towards those yeah honestly in my conception of it but we have not done a very good job of it we would have basically monthly check what's that? yeah, random objective it's more of a personal council level objective rather than a project objective I would like to have monthly check-ins to each of the objectives and then of course more of it in the end I think that's a really good way yeah because I haven't structured it very formally yet but I want to start doing that I mean one not my concern that like one of my thoughts are like sometimes you can look at the objective at the beginning and it looks right and that's nothing bigger then probably should they break it down to some smaller one and it seems like that we just haven't done it yet aren't objectives though like by future supposed to be really big? they're supposed to be like 18 months well no I mean like the objective itself might have several like the additions three things but the objective was to have to so I mean like the objective itself was to be pretty big and broken down into several things but each of those separate things maybe shouldn't be a separate one yeah see I mean we really cheated on that one because like I said it was already rolling right I mean it was mostly planned mostly forms I think the working groups are already created at the time so it's an example of how to take something that was I don't want to say grassroots but community led, community initiated and saying this is awesome let's make an objective of it it can happen the other way of course so your objectives usually aren't going to be a document saying what you want to do it's more holy crap look what I'm already doing can we take this and maybe at a higher level prioritize it but I think you'll see a lot more messiness around this in the modularization stuff that's very messy but in general I do but there's also a big discussion about that for a long time and it's already messy but I think the objective will help like as a publisher right in general having immeasurable outcome is supposed to be part of these objectives they're supposed to be things so at the end we can say was this accomplished or not or was this 40% accomplished and you'd be able to actually have some sort of sense of what that is we spent some time on this now the time is done for us yeah which is what I was asking about yeah it's a good idea so your question earlier you touched on it so you said what happens if Red Hat comes to the council as a company with an objective and and what would happen like we all said we should be representing the door I would suspect that Red Hat being the company would be actual resources we'll go into the question and that's smaller than objective but it's an example of kind of that conflict that you're asking about they will do it it will be successful based on whatever they put into it what they get out of it if it's if it's if it's continually happening if Red Hat is coming to us saying we need this in Fedora because of these reasons why and Fedora is continually saying no we're not going to do that then there's a real that's a major problem that needs to be solved and today's talked about that in your talk yesterday as well that one of the things that she's pushing to make sure that the Red Haters know too is that it is okay for the community to say no that's a bad idea and that we as individuals and as in our identity as Red Haters understand that all of us can be wiser than some of us so I think if that in a hypothetical situation I think it would probably mean that Red Hat did not do a good enough job of communicating beforehand which is why I mean Red Hat has as the ink to be coming in I use that as an example because like sometimes things can happen in the corridor and that is an example of Red Hat not communicating but I was using it as an example I mean you could there is any number of historical past disagreements that can be related to stuff that you could use as an example but not necessarily an example actually it will always be the council's responsibility to attempt to weigh the decision in the best way that best serves the Fedora project to some extent that's why some of them are elected positions I think a lot of the value Red Hat is supposed to be getting out of having an independent Fedora is that feedback so that's a valuable thing and if Red Hat doesn't listen when that happens that's to Red Hat's detriment and I think also Moe brought up about explaining not just the what but the why is an important lesson for Red Hat and for these things in general even if it's not from Red Hat why do we want to do this not just what's the technical thing you want to have these RPMs that put stuff in oct okay that's ugly that's likely to fall flat whereas what are we trying to solve with this can come early enough people in Fedora like to solve technical problems so when Red Hat comes with a solution it feels frustrating to the community so coming with problems and ideas for solutions can be more successful yeah because you're part of the community it's only with some of the solution you're part of the community and the community is only part of the solution you have more commitment to it, it's kind of almost a truism but it's really, that's what we want to do with all of the objectives and everything we're doing on the council in Fedora right now we are at the end of the first section of it's actually in room 6 that's by Tom yes sorry more questions that you would like to ask we're willing to stick around but why don't you have other sessions that you would prefer to go to in the second slot we're not going to hold you here the question was we talked about the university initiative and is there a way that Fedora should change to make it happen obviously there's anything that is different than what we're doing already is a change so yeah, there needs to be changes as a project the priority something that everybody does in these sub-projects when you go to the overview page there's these 13 sub-projects each of them whether it's design or marketing or translation and council or websites there are all these sort of silos and everybody here just starts from the assumption that we're an open source community so me getting here is taking this community lead thing and now there's like some sort of analogous position that's supposed to be similar to what engineering has for community side of things so the way that I see it is that it's kind of like a wick where like it's everybody's responsibility everybody is supposed to be doing the community stuff so there's like nobody is specifically supposed to be doing community stuff I mean when I say community stuff there are ambassadors and marketing and different aspects a different idea of what that involvement looks like I think that the difference is is that focusing specifically in academia and at different levels of academia requires a different mindset all together like the ivory tower and then depending on where you go in the world is different too so I have a decent understanding of higher ed in western US the perspective that I bring to the table and I know that when we try to do these university outreach initiatives the kinds of challenges that we have are different like one of the first objectives that came out was the university involvement initiative where we talked about and I was going to spend time talking about this anyway but I guess I'll get there was that fedora computer labs came out now at the universities that I dealt with in the US they're like a really really difficult thing to do that's IT that's purchasing that comes from decisions all the way down from the CIO of the university so you're talking about accountants who are making decisions about what software they're going to buy that then go down to IT managers so that's a really difficult way to engage with the university and the ones that I've worked with but in Europe and in APAC and a few other places that's a really easy way there are a lot of places that run whole fedora computer labs so when I was looking at the objective I was like I don't know if this is really the best strategy but then right after saying that university in the UK called Bolton sends us an email and says hey we'd love to put it into our computer so I'm like there are so many different ways that you're going to have to engage with universities and to make it a project-wide priority to engage in specifically with higher ed is a very appropriate usage and objective I would say I think that's the kind of high level goal that everyone just sort of assumes that by default we're educating people it's open source, it's knowledge for everyone we're empowering everyone just by default we're an open source community so everybody's involved in building the community so explicitly stating it I think we'll give people a way to hang their actions on this council tracker what was that kind of stuff so if there are changes that need to be made in the project it doesn't just have to happen at the council level it's not just objectives there are ways that you can get involved specifically with marketing I just sat in on a talk raising visibility at EDU by Giannis who was talking about the ways that his perspective as a recent graduate and how he thinks ambassadors and the campus ambassador program should work and that's also like within a particular region within a particular part of the project so it's old and conquer how ambassador mentoring upgrade needed to happen and it got some tools and some WordPress templates and some other tech that they're trying to pull so there are specific strategies and specific changes that are trying to happen and by giving this the overall direction I'm not sure exactly all the changes that need to happen but I'm like two months in and we need all the help we can get a couple of specific examples for example what you're saying tend to sound like management decisions not actionable community changes so some of the things that for example building and formalizing instead of operating procedures for how we approach schools what conversations do we have with them how do we write an SOP for running an install campus event some of these things how do we talk with the workstation group about making educational educational and scientific software more prevalent in their offer things like that that serve to address this need that will require actual changes somebody going in and making an engineering or a documentation change to support this that is the answer will be in the process to build a server to deploy in time and so that deploy and upgrade by five to seven instructions and you get like like a box sort of thing that you can deploy out someone setting up a new lab sometimes it's just daunting to get to the point where you actually have 200 machines running the same OS so those are some of the actual actions that the project can take to support this objective not just the having to go around and talk to every professor in the known world but actually making Fedora a more approachable place for that so what are the metrics for the university involvement in Fedora what are the things I said earlier that the investors should have at the end we've got 20% more students involved in Fedora putting you on the spot how do we do that in this objective and how are we going to tell this to us so there are six I believe aspects of the objective itself that include things like running install fests getting more patches getting more bugs reported getting more professors using open source in the classroom and each one of those we can point to and say yes under aspect number one we've checked one school to school for patches this number commits those are like really easy ones to do right but like generally getting easy to measure those are the metrics that we can definitely track and say yep this is this bug it was reported from this EDU address we can confirm that it was done during a semester here it is some of the harder ones about like improving our visibility improving the image of Fedora on campuses those are going to be a little harder to do and we can get created on how we do that whether it's web traffic or looking at page views on the magazine or specific stuff linkinopensource.com you do articles that are contributed by students and figuring out how to reach those have I mean there are some of the things are easy to measure and some of them are hard but most of the aspects I think have a metric that makes sense and like adding a little column underneath it so that we can say yes for each of them is and count on how many that's definitely something that I think shouldn't happen on a wiki page I'm looking forward to hubs being sort of the place where we can do a lot of this reporting but that's another that's down the road since we don't have that wiki pages it is although I arguably I would actually like to see a proposal soonish about hubs being injected unfortunately we're talking about a topic that is currently having a big coming out party in another word right this weekend we're missing out on Hubstock I look forward to checking out the video do check it out some of us have been involved for a while now on the the initial designs and I think it's going to be a really cool way for people to take a look at what is happening in the Pandora community and how can you become more involved with it so the goal there isn't hubs but is bringing it talked about how much activity we have in IRC and if you look at Pandora's web presence we have a very nice brochure site that's got a nice refresh it's a really good Pandora site and then we've got a scary wiki and if you look at the internet today is basically the web and then some geeky corners of it we're living in the geeky corner of it so bringing the active Pandora presence into the web is basically I'm not sure that hubs itself more of an objective but it can be very easily improve the Pandora market and something like hubs would be a part of that in your mind or I think a lot of things would be a part of this gap okay we've done all this stuff now how do we that is definitely a second one of the things that is traditionally an aspect of marketing that we don't do at all is before we do things side of things so a lot of Pandora marketing is okay we made a thing how do we sell it and traditionally there's a whole part of marketing which is what should we build what problems should we try to address and that's a marketing problem and we don't look at it that way at all I think that I know you're listening I think that maybe along with the assumption that red hat drives everything and Pandora is the presumption that maybe red hat has done that before they come to Pandora whenever they surface things there's a gap somewhere in that I'm going to repeat that for the recording as well which is that there's an assumption that when red hat comes to Pandora with things red hat has done a lot of marketing research beforehand and there's a laugh in the audience and that in reality I hope there's some of that can't be a good red hat red hat definitely does that but also red hat is really looking to Pandora to help surface the things that are important and so we have some responsibility as Pandora for ourselves and for our stakeholders to improve that so I don't know if that'll also cause Joe is suggesting that improving marketing overall is something that might be an objective we could look at I'm excited about that and I think a lot of it really I'm excited about that message as a way of honoring a lot of that we are a community mostly of builders so there are a lot of people who are on a particular package or a particular set of packages or a tool chain or a stack there's a lot of folks that build stuff and there's this fundamental antagonism of do I spend time building things or do I spend time building communities building things or telling stories about building things so I can get more people I think that that's a problem open source in general not just in Pandora is that most of the people who are contributing are hackers there are a lot of contributors we're leaving we're entering into the mainstream and as we do that we're broadening out the kinds of contributors that can get involved in talking about the different roles in the project Noki had a 10 ways you can contribute to Fedora without writing types of ways of engaging with new contributors particularly folks who want to tell stories for folks who want to measure things for people who want to get involved and those types of contributions is exciting and FedMessage is a way that we do not choose every wiki editing we make every RSE meeting we have every commit that's happening there's this database of activity and community stuff now it's actually not limited to open source it's only since the last four or five years where even commercial enterprises have started to figure out how to have software focused commercial enterprises how to engage really at all and in recent years it's gotten much better but I think this is something the industry is learning how to do better I hear a contradiction which I don't know if you can help out FedMessage basically measures a lot of technical things everything we've shown about marketing doesn't go with those 10 things that aren't committing a line of code most of those things don't get FedMessage so if you focus our efforts around what's in FedMessage it seems like we miss out on a lot of the things which aren't invisible I was about to say FedMessage is a cool tool but it's a tool measuring current contributors doing this anthem there's a lot of projects where you're not technical it's just bullshit because some of the best community managers and some of the best document writers and some of the best are technical in their field and so the lack of technical as a coder is wrong and while FedMessage does do a lot of low style metrics and even winky stuff and things like that there's a lot of other stuff that's going on out there you know that it doesn't measure and like some of the things that have been quite interesting I've seen in other things like Ansible and elastic search and stuff like that is like things like meetup.com projects where there are people who specifically do a community around meetups in cities and stuff like that and I don't maybe we've got active people but building the community around things like meetup.com and putting in templates if you want to do a or a meetup in your city join the meetup group add your city into the meetup group here's a template for doing it when you sign up for this someone will send you a bunch of stickers or whatever or things like that and like in London for example like the meetup stuff is huge and like things like the IOT and elastic search and even like the DevOps meetup there are regularly massive wait lists for it but I don't see doing any of that as a means of building a community and like those sort of stuff I don't see how we can measure that in FedMessage you possibly could put in like Twitter listeners or looking into the meetup that side of stuff using FedMessage to measure community stuff might be a bit more interesting for you sorry real quick sorry I covered a bunch of stuff so Bitergia is a dashboard for gathering metrics that comes out of a number of shops in Spain and the other is you can feed in meetup metrics and other social API stuff FedMessage specifically we're trying not to hook into the Twitters and the other social media spots because of a seriously increasing amount of traffic but you're absolutely right how do we measure non-technical contributions and recognizing non-technical contributions is huge even Fedora Badges is hugely biased towards things like build style so there is theater number one not Genesis the idea that the reason why I mentioned FedMessage that is a really important thing but when you're not having to do a lot of your own storytelling is the idea we're going to be able to bring more light to the stuff that's being developed as a side effect of you developing it not having you choose like oh I have to manually create this log of all the stuff that happened there are these logs that will bring more light to them so that the folks who are contributing in a way that's really intense don't have to choose between telling their story and building it those are serious issues that are being definitely considered non-technical contributions I think that we're confusing FedMessage with something that it is not it's the bus so we need something innovative for us I think we could use it as a database to measure technical and non-technical contribution but the problem is what do we measure and what do we want to analyze so datagreffer, datanommer and statscash are three things at the end of FedMessage right now statscash is being currently worked on by Red Hat in turn and they are building a way to cash all the things at datagreffer so that we can quickly query it to get these overall analytics so saying things like what kinds of messages and how often and what are the frequencies over different periods of time I know that your team is working on all the projects with another company do you remember that company? I think we started in Turkey yeah in Turkey so why don't we build some kind of dashboard we have that not for Fedora we need something like that so people could see Fedora closing life and we have to involve the community to get the metrics okay non-technical contributors tell us what you are doing and how we can measure it just us people so can I take a picture of what I am thinking about because I still see a symptom of the let's do things and then figure out what the story is after what I am saying is in my half-assed manner to do already with cloud is on one hand we have a cloud addition presumably a council or somebody has decided that cloud is important and we want to be a major contributor one of the things we need to do is go out and say okay like the first year I was here on AWS re-invent and surveyed many people who were talking to me why are you not using what are we missing what could we build and encourage you to do this and then go back to the cloud worker and say this is what I found this is what people tell me this is what we are missing or what we need to do so this is helping with the PRDs pre-working the story that we want to be able to tell and then depending on the level of technical expertise and more time working with the group telling that story as it goes along okay here six months from our here that should be marketing's job to tell here is the finished project and then okay here is the first version of this we need to do a user survey of how do we do how are you using this how to bring that back to those groups and have a continual cycle where marketing is both we are not really creating the story because we are depending on the different groups to own the specific part of the product but we are helping to tell that story a little bit better and give them feedback on how it's going and give some market feedback in general on what we have done a great job of this build for x86 32 bed systems but guess what people aren't using them in that's kind of what I see in having the entire project at least take some piece of ownership in marketing and be part of that process that's how I see it not just you know what are we doing and how do we weave a story out of what we are already doing accidentally so that's good to me any other kind of questions or does the door have like a mission statement in the value of the mission statement yes we sure do none of us can tell you what it is but yes to leave the advancement of open source content and culture I think it's actually fairly prominent on the fedora wiki as well and it is a really a high level mission which I think it's very ambitious and great and there's nothing wrong with that but that's part of why I have these objectives as well because it is so high level that it is hard to make something actionable about it so we've got to pick things that are actionable steps towards that mission and I think the vision is even more ambitious about a world that will never exist so good for us on that one the 4f's friends freedom features first each one of them has like a subtext that you can read there's a little section of the wiki that kind of sort of a brochure about those things that the fedora board developed in late 2000 now it's going to be somewhere in the middle there it would be very nice but it has all these kind of things and yeah it's one of the things we don't look at all that much and sort of this is kind of a I think it was good work but it was kind of sitting there in the abstract and so a lot of this is an attempt to realize it there's two references like any decrees that come from the council should have a yeah basically stated that we're trying to live up to our goal though these two ideals can put it in the fedora council and discuss the bottom ones does your have another comment yeah I can say maybe it is too high you can break it down well that's what the objectives are for hi you know shoot for the stars the objectives are supposed to be how we build the space ship I haven't talked about it but it's about doing that in general it does I'm thinking about maybe I don't think it's dead but it seems more real I have a question for any because I don't know if it's correct but there is a record problem in the fedora but here there are there are problems because they have people that are pretty real we have this community working group which is supposed to track this but it doesn't work because there are no logs nothing and where people are repeatedly abusing the many lists and we don't do anything because when I was in the board there was this type of rain aura and at least I've been aware that it was important for the fedora to be expelled from the project and it's here here because nobody has a record on what we do previously to fix that and what we went from but I'm just taking an example so the problem with trying to expel somebody from the community well it's not just exploring but we have to find something to fix the situation but the whole point of the community working group which I'm not part of but I share frustrations with is that it's mediation first so what happens is usually when you have somebody go in and mediate it's like a complete third party and not involved in the issue at all is they can talk to both sides and get it better and things calm down a little bit and then they flare up and calm down a little bit when they step back in so the continuity you were talking about how many times that person needed a council can help with as long as we know about it but when it comes down to okay this person is a repeat offender and we're going to expel from the project that is one it's a pretty severe thing to do but two it's really not enforceable right because our our method of being involved in the project is I sign up for an account and we can block their account and they can go create another one and we would never know until they you know so I mean it's a shell game if somebody really wants to be a persistent bad actor then we're just going to have to as a community finally wind up ignoring them but we haven't had that problem yet so one of the things I've been a lot more proactive in telling people in the mail let's stop it this thread is you've gotten personal attacks that's not okay this thread is going back and forth and you're just repeating yourselves it's not personal attacks but it is just noise time to stop this thread and I hope that's had a little bit of impact on bringing up the level of discourse on the mailing list part of our other approach is with Hyperkitty another talk going on right during this thing about basically having a mailing list interface which leans itself towards moderation rather than if everything goes it's just a mailing list approach that we have now and hopefully that will give us better tools for improving discussion the point is not about taking out punishment also it's more about finding how to fix this issue by maybe trying to rework the whole community working group into something visible that's definitely I'm just going to say a little bit it has to be a lot of the council to change human nature there are it should really just go there's no point to it especially when you only have like four people who maybe sometimes actively get involved and when they do they're like yeah I think I talked to that person but I don't really remember just I had one situation where I needed to use the took a while to get to resolution but the particular problem first of all here at one point I wasn't even responding to the community working group and I've had discourse with him through a technical thing and if one of the emails that he provided to me on the technical point he asked me to reply to this although it will be ratification at which point he started engaging them in the community working group and there has been a marked improvement with that person so I don't think the community working group is necessarily ineffective thankful but I mean they also don't have to do their job out of a thankful they're not effective because they have so there's always a carrot in the stick with human nature right they're there to mediate and they're always presenting the carrot of staying in fedora so I have any stick so if that person is like yeah whether there's not competing or mediation it's not very like the carrot you can get that carrot anyways so it's like the carrot field so I had the same issue where there was a person that we were dealing with that just wasn't replying to them and I basically said as a council member if you don't reply to me all your packages would be more community based right it is something that needs to be done and I don't think that the community working group in the way it was chartered and the people who were on it I don't think it was set up to have that stick at all no and so if we need to either change it so they do have a stick or disband it or tell them if you email or try to kind of take this person they ignore you email them one more time and say we're referring to you to the council like we did with the one person if that's what we have to do that's fine if you have specific stuff that isn't on our radar definitely there's a few people that are regularly obnoxious on the mailing lists I'm sorry you're obnoxious on the mailing list and you know they have been waxed with the stick a number of times but you know some people like that some people actively like when you beat them so I don't think something like a community working group is a single brush that will ever solve every problem and you know human beings are complex characters and each different one reacts in different ways and you know sometimes it's social and sometimes it's cultural and various other bits and pieces so I I think in some regards community working group is useful but in other regards you have to apply if you don't stop doing this we will remote all your packages and you can start again and stuff like that so I mean that sort of stuff is hard and I don't think we can have a single thing that deals with sometimes it will be a council sometimes it will be a single individual that actually works well with that person that will guide them along a group to improve them you know it's hard to find a person or a group of people that are willing to apply the stick without finding the same people who enjoy applying the stick yes so you know you don't want to create this stick wielder who just happens to be one of the people you now have to apply the stick to yeah so it's it's a human problem nothing is clear and it's all messy some cases the community works very well and there are other cases that never would ever work when I say it should be disbanded maybe that's not exactly what I mean I do but I think like Heiko said there's no transparency in what they're doing which is understandable in these kind of situations but there's no continuity nobody has insight to what has happened so right right yeah so it seems ineffectual just because by design there's nothing tracking what it's doing and so maybe that is the aspect of it that at least somebody should be trying to fix maybe they just report to the council this is what we did and if they did nothing, awesome our project was working well if they did something, at least the council has an awareness of it just for the record why I'm reporting this issue is that many people from from the wrong community are telling me that they are not showing up on the federal millennia these kind of people because people are bashing you, trashing them or even worse, because they are a reddit company you are a target for some people which is unbearable and unacceptable even if you are you don't have to care because your employer is paying you to work on their arm you're part of the community anyway and you deserve respect by any means yeah I already did with speaking of an issue we had with the sponsor and I told you we managed to fix that so mediation works but we keep laws somewhere so can I just propose that we talk a little bit about modularization yeah, yeah, let's hear about it so generally speaking the concept here is open source to give a little backstory as far as I'm concerned and I think a lot of people are concerned open source has won which is really, really cool the aspect of open source has won but has the really big downside of open source has won which is that the proliferation of open source has become just my bottom it used to be there was a lot of crap open source projects and there is still a lot of crap open source projects but now there's a really large number of really good open source projects and so many that we start to see many good options for many different things and as a result we're starting to struggle with the size of what does it mean to be a distro and some of the work around the written stuff was to start to think about how can we kind of start to scope some of the things that we're doing I have a slide there was a thing about a little earlier about you know Fedora slowing down because we've got 17,000 packages but basically that's a little square like this or is it a square like this the number of packages in Fedora versus the number of repos in GitHub are that order orders and orders and orders and orders of magnitude so how can we capture that even capture the best of that is seems like a losing battle so the idea was kind of originally with the rings was to start to think about can we have different levels of quality for packages for example or for components of the distro so that first of all there can be kind of an on ramp for new components to be included into the main official distro and what at least I think we're also starting to realize is that there's also kind of scoping the other way so we're starting to see the additions so there's things that the cloud wants but the workstation doesn't want and never will and so we also have kind of this other direction where you kind of have slices out of the rings right where you kind of have the additions ideas and it's all kind of getting super super messy and so what the modularization effort is around is to start to understand what it is that the Fedora community wants out of the distro right so there's a bunch of different things there you know there's some of the traditional stuff which is you couldn't trust your vendors so as a result we need ways that we can know about single package updates and be able to have the facility to update them quickly when there was a security hole or whatever we're also starting to get kind of the reverse of that which is bug compatibility so in other words one of the big reasons for the rise of Docker right is that it always works on my machine right and so if you have a sysadmin who patches because of a security hole or whatever an application in production that can sometimes break the application because let's say the developer had a workaround for that security hole right so a bug for bug compatibility becomes a problem and that's in some ways what Docker helps with but it has the danger of now leaving security holes so you have kind of this other end of the spectrum right where developers actually don't want patching happening and sysadmin always want patching happening so in Fedora we have a number of different types of users right we have a lot of sysadmin we have a lot of developers we have developers who contribute to the OS but we also have developers who want to build things on the OS who have a different set of requirements as well so the first phase is to try to start to gather some requirements and we're getting there and the next phase is to start to think about what can we do to try to maybe rethink how we meet those needs because we have the kind of the distro concept like the 90s-ish was kind of the model that was designed and all the distros have come out of that of variations on a similar theme with different priorities and different tradeoffs and that kind of stuff but essentially the same kind of concept and what the objective is proposing is can we do something different is there a new way we can do this and for lack of a better term we're kind of calling it modularization can we potentially start to think about any up-leveling what the size of the package is so that doesn't necessarily mean bundling for example like a docker container is sort of bundled but sort of not because it's still rpms on the inside but it has a lot of the side effects of potentially things like bundling so that's kind of the next phase is how can we start to work out what can we do differently we'll go back to the 90s yeah we can just use go and then start doing everything and just call it done and go bundled with wow oh yeah we can all come different versions of the same thing when you say redefining what the size of the package is you aren't you're talking but you're talking about having the fedora project deliver these in an official capacity let's figure this out cool here's a template go do this developer guide we're talking about having the project deliver as well as having those modules too so you can start to say I have relational database a lot and it has a certain api and it has a version on that api but that doesn't necessarily require what is actually implementing that api well and then there's other aspects to it besides just docker too the workstation group with Alex Larson and second api apps is another I mean from a meta standpoint well so you have one of the paths that you can implement said modules with is containerization technologies XUG app LXC docker whatever another path is you start to think about are there ways we can use gems directly and I chose that no you can't use them correctly they're ruby actually said directly but yeah so gems or you know Python libraries or whatever like could those provide some aspects of these api delivery systems and to start to think about the fedora in a sense the fedora project being an OS with modules rather than kind of the concept we have now which is that the OS and the distro are synonymous and interesting you talk about the amount of quality open source projects out there I think that most of the active ones right now that are not out of the traditional 90s version of things you've got stuff like gem that's been in fedora forever and it doesn't use bundled libraries so that integrated part of GNOME or KDE those things tend to work really well with the distro model but like log stash they basically said stop stop packaging or software if you're making it worse pump it in the same situation I think you have dark table which is a photography software all photography software we have in fedora that I'm aware of bundles their own copy of a raw decoding library which is violation of the packaging guidelines on the other hand I do not see how we're making it better for our users by unbundling it because they are tied to a specific version of the decoding in their software it matches their documentation this way weird bugs will happen I think part of the problem is define user is part of the problem so the consumer of that photography piece of software is not necessarily the same person who maintains the operating system than their own so in other words like when my son runs software I prefer it to be unbundled for 15 seconds to update it versus even when I'm doing it it's different hacks so you have we have a little bit of the problem of user and then I would actually add to that that I would actually argue that something like you know or any other large application that does unbundling actually has exactly the same problem for a number of reasons one you have that you need a particular version of the library but then on top of that they've also gotten so large that they need to have they need to start thinking about larger units of separation as well so basically I haven't been an assistant for 20 years so I understand the motivation for the unbundling and the packaging and I understand why that makes things better but I think that we've gotten to the point where the guidelines become sort of a mantra that we must follow without looking at whether that makes the situation better or worse for an individual package or the bar or looking at that it's very high well I suppose there's a situation where people actively signal that because we don't have teeth for those things they're just sort of ignored in practice and we were like what's going to kick all the photography software out of the distribution by doing that that seems unlikely but then we've got everybody in violation of the guidelines making the guidelines kind of a joke and stripped of the guidelines to get more people to ignore them it's a bad situation I guess what I'm hoping is that given where we are in the software world versus where we were 15 years ago can we try to solve for both problems and maybe we'll still be making trade-offs but we don't necessarily have to say that bundling is the right answer or that unbundling is the wrong answer but I think I'm going to word in here he's less loud than you hey go sorry what I was thinking is that we had this issue recently with the big day of Europe and I've been working closely with them and it's at this rate we have to retire the rule hand of staff at some point from the law which is harmful for the project because it's such an important thing but we need to be there because bundling is impossible with such type of stream it's impossible I do there's a one time in a package that and then ceases to maintain it so that's a very out of date and it's broken in a number of different ways even in a stream it's advising people not choosing federal packages one of the problems is that unbundling for any significantly complicated software requires intimate knowledge of that software and the upstream isn't interested in doing that they don't see the advantage of it somebody can come in and say okay I unbundled it so I can get a package in Fedora and then that is going to fit right and that's I mean my question was going to be around the particular big data that happened because they came in and said we'll just drop everything we'll just upstream the stuff and we'll just build it as a document as you call it Fedora and it's like I actually stepped in and you can't actually do that if upstream wants to produce a way of getting to run on Fedora that's fine from my point of view from a reliant person like reliant is massively overworked as it is having and dealing with the stuff within the project is hard enough to suddenly have a big data worker we're going to pull in this 60-odd random bundled up have no idea how this dependency works thing show it into a container that reliant is going to build and we're going to ship it out for Fedora it's not really Fedora but it will work better than what's in Fedora but to me that's something that the Hanoop project should be producing because that's one of the thea of doggone and doggone like images one of my concerns actually about like the distro model is that all of the packaging information lives in Fedora not in the actual projects so unless there is some driving force for example the guy who works on Hanoop happens to also run Fedora there's no particular good reason why that needs to be and at the same time there's no value to a Hadoop developer to learn RPM there's no other benefit besides actually putting it in the distro so if we can also try to meet them at a place where it's more useful to them then we can also try to figure out a way to it's not just learning RPM but it's learning the Fedora way of doing it it's a Fedora package and every time a vendor makes a package they do it wrong because they don't have the same concerns as the distro does it's wrong from our point of view and right from their point of view well if I want to run out here and I want to run out here and do strong and that's very out of line we have five minutes before everybody we are going to we're trying to get a workshop for 10am on Saturday about this subject feel free to come and argue about it there and hopefully we'll start to see more activity on mailing lists about this subject but that means I have to stop slacking so ready just one more question are you planning to have a working group working with you on this? I don't know it's not a bad idea I think we can have at least the cloud and the workshops I thought you meant a dedicated working group the modular objective you mean a new working group yeah maybe something I think it meant stacks yeah I wanted stacks it's different that's what the stacks part the stack to me is different it's some kind of specific model well I mean personally I think there's a number of different ideas about what environments and stacks is supposed to be from a working group perspective and I think the council needs to more clearly define what their role is particularly seeing is that I think at least half of the council thinks that what environments and stacks is supposed to be doing is not on what they think their list of things to do is the solution to having too many committees is not to create another committee what I mean my working group is just a group to discuss things and then London would be the one making he's just helping him to build a proposal yeah so I'd rather see environments and stacks I hope it would be a chocolate group not something that would last so I'd rather see it live in environments and stacks I'd rather see like the workstation x2g app work be shared more with environments and stacks and that conversation more be in environments and stacks along with Docker in the cloud working group along with rollkit in server they're all kind of doing the same kind of thing it's kind of like we have this group over here that's meant to be off to the side that is the place where we can collaborate on the things that we might want to share in all the additions for example I can't imagine a group built by environments and stacks working with x2g apps yeah I think that would be if we could kind of shift and to take a point I don't know that the ENS group entirely understands that that's what we were hoping for out of them so we also need to tell them that I think for the longest time the ENS was let's get a software collection for people ENS is an Amish bulk food store in Sichuan Indiana so that is funny to me yeah we built weapons for kids oh sorry we have one minute left same as pedal this is the opposite well some of this appears in some though do you want to answer that or do you want to come to us and say hey we should do this actually I think the Fedora community has actually caused Red Hat to create a position it was actually a position at Fedora first so it's right now at the stage I'm not sure if you were here earlier when we were talking about it a little bit but right now it's at the stage where we're taking applications for the role and there's been a search committee identified and then that person will join the council in that specific capacity because it's very much a right yes it's a more there are a lot of different backgrounds a lot of different cultures that are just simply not representative it's very there are a lot of ideas that are just going unheard because they are but it is socioeconomic not professional I think though that does a lot tie into it as well because the state of IT right now tends to slant towards white e-mails and so right this is well it's all English it's all English sorry there are a couple we're there? check I think did somebody want to French do or maybe Fedora is definitely a language bias that's another another aspect of it I think the aspects of bringing in diversity into non-technical roles getting representation and respect in Fedora is a related issue to the same thing but we've mostly that part of this is not all core conferences are given in English the South American for example I usually told there's a lot of Spanish content there Fedora but depending on where we're playing places that it tends to be a little more of a language a lot of local English we are out of time though we do have a talk in Clean Out in Room 6 later today like laying that we're going to try and do some kind of community workshop thing on Saturday I don't think it'll be officially in a room it might be in a lobby or something but if you want to talk more about that stuff come find us 10 a.m. on Saturday we're going to speak