Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (230 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] openSUSE 2016 picture

Am 27.11.2013 18:47, schrieb Richard Brown:
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 17:40 +0100, agustin benito bethencourt wrote:
What do we want to achieve? Goals

1) Add focus to increase alignment among contributors.

Why? for what purpose and to what end? Does that alignment include
finding ways to make openSUSE and SLE more aligned such as introduced by
Ralf Flaxa at oSC 14?

How do we address the obvious concern that adding 'focus' might
disenfranchise contributors who do not agree with the chosen direction
for that focus?

I don't see it as black and white and I see there should be some more
focus sometimes.
Having contributors is a good thing but if everyone just does what he
wants it doesn't work out and doesn't result in a polished distribution.

2) Foster the community and the user base.
- Starting from our current community, we want to keep increasing the
number of contributors, specially those working on core parts of the

Sounds good, I agree

I guess nobody can disagree here ;-) neither do I.

- The openSUSE user base needs to grow. We propose to be even more open
to new niches.

Why? More users is never a bad thing, but why do we *need* to grow the
users? We could be a distribution by our contributors, for our
contributors. What's the case that makes it clear we *need* to grow the
number of users?

I would like openSUSE to stay relevant.
For example relevant to stay (or get) supported from third party (yes,
even closed source) software vendors.
Relevant enough so people outside of the openSUSE community are seeing
openSUSE as a relevant target to "integrate" with.
If we just want to be "a distribution by our contributors, for our
contributors" how many users will we have in a few years?
More users will also increase the number of contributors.

3) Catalyze openSUSE maturity process.
- openSUSE has an interesting number of contributors. Now we think it is
time to reinforce our structures.

What is 'interesting' about the number of contributors? They've doubled
in 3 years

Hmm, my view is probably a bit limited and focused on technical things
but where exactly did it help?
- quality of the distribution?
- innovation?
- more packages in Factory

I agree with the last item but I see very few areas where we improved
(technically) because of the number of contributors.

- Having more solid structures/groups will allow openSUSE to assume more
responsibilities and deliver.
- In general, we think we need few rules but good ones, easy to follow and

If we're talking about encouraging people to coalesce and work in
'Teams', similar to the way the GNOME team currently operates, I can
certainly say it works very well for us and I can happily support the
idea of promoting the approach to other parts of the Project.

the above depends on the rules in the end. Not much to comment here.

Enhanced Factory

We would like to put effort in Factory in the following direction:

* New process getting the best of Factory, Tumbeweed and devel projects. We
need everybody contributing in a single point for a single purpose. We are
just too few to spread efforts.

I can certainly see the benefit of such an idea. Are we talking about
effectively 'obsoleting' Tumbleweed by making this 'new Factory' a
stable, usable, rolling release?

I'd hope so. I really can imagine to use a more or less stable Factory
on a desktop. Tumbleweed is still a bit scary for me for that purpose as
it lives a bit outside of the development process.
By having a really usable Factory we could do less releases but support
them for a longer time probably (hopefully).

Overhauled openSUSE Release

All sounds very ambitious. I'm interested in hearing more

A new combination of stable Factory and new release model could
absolutely fit into my own usecases.
There are people who want the latest and greatest and even the 8 month
release cycle is too long for them. They should use Factory. Others need
a stable base for a longer time (than 18 months).
(I actually need both ;-))
OBS provides a way to even get updates for the stable releases for
certain components if needed.

* Technical governance model adapted to our new development processes: very
few but clearer rules. Mentoring ecosystem.

This is certainly an area I'm interested in seeing what the rest of our
community feels. Our current Governance body (The Board) is strictly
forbidden from making Technical decisions.

I would really prefer someone to be able to make technical decisions if
The status quo seems to be that coolo is the one because someone needs
to keep Factory working. So we will always need someone to decide and
even when I basically trust coolo I think this is not the right approach.

I understand the philosophy for Technical Governance to date has largely
been 'those who do, decide'. If changes are made in this area, I'd like
to think they can keep that spirit, the idea anyone can get involved and
that changes are made on their technical merits, not political ones (eg.
does the submitter sit on the right steering group? who is their

Yes, no politics please. Just technical decisions to the best of the
project. I also don't think that this task should be done by the board
but by a different group of people.
The 'those who do, decide' is basically something I support to an
extend. But we had examples in the past that people who decided only
"did it" halfway and put the burden onto the rest of of the community to
fix their mess

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups