[opensuse-project] Problems with the strategies
As said in my previous mail, I have a strong feeling that the discussions are often pointless and lead nowhere. It seems to me that this is partly also because the strategies, as currently formulated, do not offer a good way to lead somewhere. Specifically, their either poorly or completely fail to address fundamental practical issues, such as the following questions: - who will do the work? - what will openSUSE actually gain from it? - what may openSUSE lose because of it? I hope we can all agree that these are very important questions related to the strategies. Also, to actually better understand the strategies, I think it would be very good if they gave examples and answered the question - what will openSUSE look like in 2 years? For example, looking at the mobile/cloud strategy, let me try to give answers for that strategy, as I see it: In 2 years: With the mobile/cloud strategy, openSUSE will include as much software as possible that connects to web-based services, and those are the preferred solutions. Other solutions are included, if possible, but they are secondary. The distribution makes it very easy to connect to these services and work with them. [This should be longer, but since it's not an area I understand well, I will stop. The 'focus on' and intro sections provide some information for this]. The gains: As a result, openSUSE will attract users who use the web and mobile devices extensivelly, web developers, professionals who work in areas related to cloud/mobile. Number of packages that are necessary for the primary focus will be considerably smaller, because a lot of functionality will be provided by something on the web and not by openSUSE itself, thus reducing the required effort. The loses: Users who prefer solutions that are not heavily web-based may leave openSUSE for another distribution with a focus that suits them better. These people may be developers who focus on other areas than web development, desktop users (i.e. those that prefer local mail client and so on). Who will do the work: I don't know. People focused on the web are more likely to work on something web-based and will be presumably not very good at maintaining a distribution, nor interested very much in it. People who already are contributors or who may become ones are more likely to be driven away by this strategy, possibly eventually leading to existing contributors not being able to handle even the reduced work. => FAIL. So the strategy, as I understand it, is in practice unsustainable and as such a complete failure, even though in theory it may look nice. This may be just because I don't understand the mobile/cloud area well, but that's how I see it. If I'm wrong, create better answers to the questions in the wiki. I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals. PS: Just in case it's not clear, there's no point in discussing my analysis of the mobile/cloud strategy itself. -- Lubos Lunak openSUSE Boosters team, KDE developer l.lunak@suse.cz , l.lunak@kde.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
* Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz> [2010-08-05 18:11]:
- who will do the work? - what will openSUSE actually gain from it? - what may openSUSE lose because of it?
[...]
I hope we can all agree that these are very important questions related to the strategies. Also, to actually better understand the strategies, I think it would be very good if they gave examples and answered the question
- what will openSUSE look like in 2 years?
For example, looking at the mobile/cloud strategy, let me try to give answers for that strategy, as I see it:
In 2 years: With the mobile/cloud strategy, openSUSE will include as much software as possible that connects to web-based services, and those are the preferred solutions. Other solutions are included, if possible, but they are secondary. The distribution makes it very easy to connect to these services and work with them. [This should be longer, but since it's not an area I understand well, I will stop. The 'focus on' and intro sections provide some information for this].
The gains: As a result, openSUSE will attract users who use the web and mobile devices extensivelly, web developers, professionals who work in areas related to cloud/mobile. Number of packages that are necessary for the primary focus will be considerably smaller, because a lot of functionality will be provided by something on the web and not by openSUSE itself, thus reducing the required effort.
The loses: Users who prefer solutions that are not heavily web-based may leave openSUSE for another distribution with a focus that suits them better. These people may be developers who focus on other areas than web development, desktop users (i.e. those that prefer local mail client and so on).
Who will do the work: I don't know. People focused on the web are more likely to work on something web-based and will be presumably not very good at maintaining a distribution, nor interested very much in it. People who already are contributors or who may become ones are more likely to be driven away by this strategy, possibly eventually leading to existing contributors not being able to handle even the reduced work.
=> FAIL.
So the strategy, as I understand it, is in practice unsustainable and as such a complete failure, even though in theory it may look nice. This may be just because I don't understand the mobile/cloud area well, but that's how I see it. If I'm wrong, create better answers to the questions in the wiki.
I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals.
Some of the proposals seem to be completely arbitrary and removed from the current reality (i.e. areas which people are working on and the distribution of capacities within the project). Rather I would find it more constructive to discuss what areas of our current strategy (as written down on http://wiki.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Status_quo_strategy ) are inadequate, for what reasons, and how that could be improved. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz> wrote:
As said in my previous mail, I have a strong feeling that the discussions are often pointless and lead nowhere. It seems to me that this is partly also because the strategies, as currently formulated, do not offer a good way to lead somewhere. Specifically, their either poorly or completely fail to address fundamental practical issues, such as the following questions:
- who will do the work? - what will openSUSE actually gain from it? - what may openSUSE lose because of it?
I hope we can all agree that these are very important questions related to the strategies. Also, to actually better understand the strategies, I think it would be very good if they gave examples and answered the question
- what will openSUSE look like in 2 years?
For example, looking at the mobile/cloud strategy, let me try to give answers for that strategy, as I see it:
In 2 years: With the mobile/cloud strategy, openSUSE will include as much software as possible that connects to web-based services, and those are the preferred solutions. Other solutions are included, if possible, but they are secondary. The distribution makes it very easy to connect to these services and work with them. [This should be longer, but since it's not an area I understand well, I will stop. The 'focus on' and intro sections provide some information for this].
The gains: As a result, openSUSE will attract users who use the web and mobile devices extensivelly, web developers, professionals who work in areas related to cloud/mobile. Number of packages that are necessary for the primary focus will be considerably smaller, because a lot of functionality will be provided by something on the web and not by openSUSE itself, thus reducing the required effort.
The loses: Users who prefer solutions that are not heavily web-based may leave openSUSE for another distribution with a focus that suits them better. These people may be developers who focus on other areas than web development, desktop users (i.e. those that prefer local mail client and so on).
Who will do the work: I don't know. People focused on the web are more likely to work on something web-based and will be presumably not very good at maintaining a distribution, nor interested very much in it. People who already are contributors or who may become ones are more likely to be driven away by this strategy, possibly eventually leading to existing contributors not being able to handle even the reduced work.
=> FAIL.
So the strategy, as I understand it, is in practice unsustainable and as such a complete failure, even though in theory it may look nice. This may be just because I don't understand the mobile/cloud area well, but that's how I see it. If I'm wrong, create better answers to the questions in the wiki.
I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals.
PS: Just in case it's not clear, there's no point in discussing my analysis of the mobile/cloud strategy itself.
-- Lubos Lunak openSUSE Boosters team, KDE developer l.lunak@suse.cz , l.lunak@kde.org
Lubos, Thank you for writing the above. I think it is one of the wisest responses to the strategy discussion I've seen. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 06:04:26 pm Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz> wrote:
As said in my previous mail, I have a strong feeling that the discussions are often pointless and lead nowhere. It seems to me that this is partly also because the strategies, as currently formulated, do not offer a good way to lead somewhere. Specifically, their either poorly or completely fail to address fundamental practical issues, such as the following questions:
- who will do the work? - what will openSUSE actually gain from it? - what may openSUSE lose because of it?
I hope we can all agree that these are very important questions related to the strategies. Also, to actually better understand the strategies, I think it would be very good if they gave examples and answered the question
- what will openSUSE look like in 2 years?
For example, looking at the mobile/cloud strategy, let me try to give answers for that strategy, as I see it:
In 2 years: With the mobile/cloud strategy, openSUSE will include as much software as possible that connects to web-based services, and those are the preferred solutions. Other solutions are included, if possible, but they are secondary. The distribution makes it very easy to connect to these services and work with them. [This should be longer, but since it's not an area I understand well, I will stop. The 'focus on' and intro sections provide some information for this].
The gains: As a result, openSUSE will attract users who use the web and mobile devices extensivelly, web developers, professionals who work in areas related to cloud/mobile. Number of packages that are necessary for the primary focus will be considerably smaller, because a lot of functionality will be provided by something on the web and not by openSUSE itself, thus reducing the required effort.
The loses: Users who prefer solutions that are not heavily web-based may leave openSUSE for another distribution with a focus that suits them better. These people may be developers who focus on other areas than web development, desktop users (i.e. those that prefer local mail client and so on).
Who will do the work: I don't know. People focused on the web are more likely to work on something web-based and will be presumably not very good at maintaining a distribution, nor interested very much in it. People who already are contributors or who may become ones are more likely to be driven away by this strategy, possibly eventually leading to existing contributors not being able to handle even the reduced work.
=> FAIL.
So the strategy, as I understand it, is in practice unsustainable and as such a complete failure, even though in theory it may look nice. This may be just because I don't understand the mobile/cloud area well, but that's how I see it. If I'm wrong, create better answers to the questions in the wiki.
I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals.
PS: Just in case it's not clear, there's no point in discussing my analysis of the mobile/cloud strategy itself.
-- Lubos Lunak openSUSE Boosters team, KDE developer l.lunak@suse.cz , l.lunak@kde.org
Lubos,
Thank you for writing the above. I think it is one of the wisest responses to the strategy discussion I've seen.
Greg
I also appreciate Lubos' contribution, as it allows us to get some focus on the discussion. I'm not sure the "Who will do the work?" portion completely belongs as part of the strategy; once we have a strategy, presumably we will organize ourselves in some fashion to carry out the decided strategy. I do think we are not yet ready to vote on a final strategy document. The discussion to date (what I've been able to follow) really has not led to many conclusions. Our new community manager, Jos, brings some wisdom to the "what does a strategy do and not do" question in his post on the "KDE First" proposal: http://nowwhatthe.blogspot.com/2010/08/kde-strategy-for- opensuse.html Mike McCallister -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
I also appreciate Lubos' contribution, as it allows us to get some focus on the discussion. I'm not sure the "Who will do the work?" portion completely belongs as part of the strategy; once we have a strategy, presumably we will organize ourselves in some fashion to carry out the decided strategy.
The "who will do the work" questions is two questions in one, and they're both vital for any strategy: where will the resources come from; and what reward will the investors (contributors) receive. We must answer both questions for any strategy before we know whether we can deliver it. David -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday 05 August 2010 18:10:54 Lubos Lunak wrote:
I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals.
Ok, I'll take the Lunak test for the platform proposal (http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Distribution_platform_strategy):
In 2 years:
The openSUSE distribution will be the number one distribution in the market of technical users. It comes with a stable base set of software, which is also used by SLES, MeeGo, and a number of other strong distributions, including first-class KDE and GNOME distributions. Depending on where the world moves to there might also be a strong cloud- or mobile-oriented distibution, or a developer focused one, or whatever the current trend will be in two years. All those distributions benefit from the quality and the functionality of the technically excellent openSUSE tool infrastructure. The community around the openSUSE distribution and its focused sub-teams have a lot of fun with creating successful distributions and the many users which use them.
The gains:
openSUSE keeps most parts of its current user base and extends it to a lot of other people who currently go for special distributions, Mac, or are still on Ubuntu or Fedora. By focusing on a great tool infrastructure for packaging and distributing software, it attracts upstream developers, which grow the contributors community. By providing a platform for distribution development, it enables companies and communities to use and contribute to openSUSE for their own distributions instead of having to spin their own or use another one as a base. These people will grow the openSUSE community.
The loses:
Users who have no technical understanding will not find the required help with openSUSE and might switch to a distribution more focused on their needs. Bleeding edge users might find openSUSE too stable and might switch to a distribution more focused on their needs. Contributors who only want to cover one specific use case for a distribution might switch to a distribution more focused on their needs.
Who will do the work:
Most current contributors will find a place either in the main distribution or in one of the distributions based on it. By providing a distribution platform, we'll address people who are interested in distribution development, that's exactly the people who are able to help and join the community. So those who use the platform will take part in doing the work needed for the base and the infrastructure. By addressing technical users we grow the community of users which is capable to get involved with distribution and tool development. So they will help to do the work as well. => WIN. -- Cornelius Schumacher <cschum@suse.de> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 06/08/2010 20:27, Cornelius Schumacher a écrit :
(http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Distribution_platform_strategy):
The loses:
given than the open source licences allows easy forks and copies, don't you think than new, non openSUSE based distros will emerge on top of this infrastructure, a bit like Ubuntu on Debian? the we may have much work, but no more openSUSE? How many Debian users are now openSUSE users? I'l not sure the reverse Ubuntu gives to Debian makes things equal. This is possible, but much more difficult right now I don't think licences allow us to ask for our name be kept on every applyance jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:27:15 +0200, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Thursday 05 August 2010 18:10:54 Lubos Lunak wrote:
I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals.
Ok, I'll take the Lunak test for the platform proposal (http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Distribution_platform_strategy): [...]
To me, this reads like a vision statement, not a strategy. To me a strategy is about how you get there, not what you want to be. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 06 August 2010 22:22:35 Jim Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:27:15 +0200, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Thursday 05 August 2010 18:10:54 Lubos Lunak wrote:
I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals.
Ok, I'll take the Lunak test for the platform proposal (http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Distribution_platform_strategy): [...]
To me, this reads like a vision statement, not a strategy. To me a strategy is about how you get there, not what you want to be.
Whatever. Details. The Lunak test gives more insight in the strategic proposal, so that's good, period. I'd love to see the other proposals go through this test ;-)
Jim
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:28:50 +0200, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Friday 06 August 2010 22:22:35 Jim Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:27:15 +0200, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Thursday 05 August 2010 18:10:54 Lubos Lunak wrote:
I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals.
Ok, I'll take the Lunak test for the platform proposal (http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Distribution_platform_strategy): [...]
To me, this reads like a vision statement, not a strategy. To me a strategy is about how you get there, not what you want to be.
Whatever. Details. The Lunak test gives more insight in the strategic proposal, so that's good, period. I'd love to see the other proposals go through this test ;-)
I don't disagree with that, but I think the distinction is an important one to make. When we talk about strategy, it is about how to achieve the vision - so the two are interlinked, certainly. :-) It's just not enough for me to set a goal without building a roadmap of how we get there. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Monday 09 August 2010 21:08:10 Jim Henderson wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:28:50 +0200, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Friday 06 August 2010 22:22:35 Jim Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:27:15 +0200, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
On Thursday 05 August 2010 18:10:54 Lubos Lunak wrote:
I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals.
Ok, I'll take the Lunak test for the platform proposal (http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Distribution_platform_strategy): [...]
To me, this reads like a vision statement, not a strategy. To me a strategy is about how you get there, not what you want to be.
Whatever. Details. The Lunak test gives more insight in the strategic proposal, so that's good, period. I'd love to see the other proposals go through this test ;-)
I don't disagree with that, but I think the distinction is an important one to make. When we talk about strategy, it is about how to achieve the vision - so the two are interlinked, certainly. :-) It's just not enough for me to set a goal without building a roadmap of how we get there.
Technically, you're right. We should have a mission, a vision and a strategy. But to simplify things, we just have a strategy which has all (to some extend). I know it is a bit messy, and I'd be completely happy to have each strategy cut up in pieces: vision, mission, strategy, what/how/where/etc, pro/con, Lunak test etc etc.
Jim
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:27:10 +0200, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
Technically, you're right. We should have a mission, a vision and a strategy. But to simplify things, we just have a strategy which has all (to some extend). I know it is a bit messy, and I'd be completely happy to have each strategy cut up in pieces: vision, mission, strategy, what/how/where/etc, pro/con, Lunak test etc etc.
Maybe for clarity that's the next step that should be taken once we have general alignment on a strategy. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
I suggest that every strategy proposal is extended to provide answers to these important questions. Without it, the discussions are just fluff talk and there is no good base for actually judging the strategy proposals.
Thanks Lubos, A timely and pertinent comment and contribution. David -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
participants (9)
-
Administrator -
Cornelius Schumacher -
Greg Freemyer -
Guido Berhoerster -
jdd -
Jim Henderson -
Jos Poortvliet -
Lubos Lunak -
Mike McCallister