Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> Any one of those can invalidate the mathematical tests you say to run >> as they require random pools, controls on populations polled, and >> non-leading questions. People keep telling you this and you seem to >> keep ignoring it. > > I know the poll is far from perfect. But it is the best we have and it is a > better basis for decision than somebody's guess which has no roots in > reality at all. > > And unlike your motorcycle example, there is no provable bias into either > direction. All you can say is that the results MAY be false due to imperfect > methodology, you can't prove they are. I am sorry, but I was confused. You said you would compute p-value tests, but those are only really valuable if you have over a 90% confidence level in the data. Using a non-random sampling polling method which the forum comes in.. I was advised that the best confidence level one could have was 60% with it probably being more like 50%. At this point your +/- % is about 50% also. At this point, what I can say about the survey is that somewhere between 1% to 100% of people want 'adventurous updates'. And between 1% and 100% do not. Yes the number 78% looks really strong but the confidence in it is so low that it could just as easily have been 22% .. and just as been accurate. -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[HALL-MONITORED]Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
This thread is now closed. We've received repeated complaints about the redundancy of it. No further posts to this thread will be allowed. Thank You, Seth Vidal Fedora Hall Monitor https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Bernd Stramm wrote: > I would like to pick the packages that I'm adventurous with. Currently > that's not very easy, either an adventurousness level is enabled in the > repos or it isn't. That means my package manager gives me a flood of > updates that I don't want. It would be nice to be able to filter that. > For my objective, that is a package management issue, fedora policy > doesn't need to be changed. What you're asking for is selective updating. This is a very hard problem to solve in practice, and in general unsolvable with a single repo. It is just impossible, with a single repository, to be able to select one type of changes without also accepting unrelated changes. Packages depend on each other, the same package receives changes of varying nature etc. So I am afraid what you're asking for is technically not possible, sorry. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: >> That's another problem with the poll. "Adventurous" means different >> things to different people, so you can't assume that everybody is >> responding to the same thing. > > "Adventurous" has quite an implication of breakage. A milder term would > probably have given an even HIGHER percentage for "adventurous" updates. Actually adventurous is a positive word association like freedom. People associate it overwhelmingly with good things versus downsides. It is why everyone from armies to travel organizations use it in recruitment posters. It is a standard Marketing 101 catch phrase to make people think highly of something. -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On 05/04/2010 02:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: Wrong. There was data, on this very list, of users who desired more conservative updates. There was also evidence on IRC of more users who felt the same. I'd say there is the same quality of data It's an interesting commentary on history to note the following facts: 1.) The more progressive a society is, the greater the relative wealth/abundance of the society. 2.) As a society ages, it grows more conservative. 3.) As a society grows more conservative, the relative, observable stagnation quickly follows Stagnation has begun in the Fedora community. Lyos Gemini Norezel <>-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Thomas Spura wrote: > Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote: >> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said: >> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this >> >> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who >> >> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only >> >> non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting. >> > >> > You claim you have taken grad-level statistics, but you don't appear to >> > understand how to select a sample. A self-selected sample on a web >> > forum (with no basis to show that forum members are representative of >> > the Fedora user base, much less that poll responders represent even the >> > forum users) does not lead to valid statistical results. It doesn't >> > matter how big the sample size is if the samples are not properly >> > selected. >> > >> > >> >> No, I exactly know how to select a sample. The forum based sample is >> "the" perfect sample. It is the users who talk. It is not the >> imaginary users, who you claim to exist. I do not care about your >> imaginary users. I do care about those who talk. Hence the statistic >> is significant. > > You assume here 'imaginary users' don't need to be heard or in your > words 'are stupid' and nobody should care about them. > You missed the point completely. Please re-read. Let me elaborate. The biggest problem with FESCo members is, whenever an issue is brought up to them and the issue does not affect some of the FESCo members, they openly say "I don't care, so +1", or "It doesn't matter, -1". You can see this a lot in the calling the Gnome spin "the Gnome spin" thread. If an issue is brought up to FESCo, that means that there is an issue. FESCo members are not in a position to not care about issues. Kevin Kofler, although he was good in most occasions, fell into the same hole during the "changing updates policy thread" by saying that he thinks that the policy should stay the same. No, it shouldn't stay the same. It bothers some people. Maybe he spent so much time in FESCo that he got accustomed to the ways. What is stupid is not what minority wants. What is stupid is to imagine that there is a huge pool of users who don't voice their opinion in any platform but supposedly they think in the same direction with FESCo. No, the people who want a conservative updates policy is the minority (period) This doesn't mean that they should be completely disregarded. If there is an issue even with minority, FESCo should look for ways to solve it. I hope I made it clear this time. Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:04:45 +0200 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Peter Jones wrote: > > Wait just a second - you're arguing that requiring testing doesn't > > work because nobody tested the KDE spin within 8 days. You might > > want to rethink this position. > > Why? I don't see the contradiction. If nobody tests things, testing > doesn't and can't work. More likely explanations include, but are not limited to: - the fixed package wasn't seriously broken, nobody knew about the fix - the fixed package isn't used - the fixed package users have given up using it - testing people asleep on the job Bernd -- Bernd Stramm -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 19:25 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > Bad data is worse than no data. > > I disagree. As "bad" as the data is, it can't be worse than claiming users > want, or worse, "need", conservative updates without any evidence whatsoever > as has been done! Wrong. There was data, on this very list, of users who desired more conservative updates. There was also evidence on IRC of more users who felt the same. I'd say there is the same quality of data. > > In fact I can bring you non-statistical evidence for the opposite: There is > already a distribution which works the way people suggested (releases every > 6 months, does not upgrade their stable releases to new upstream releases). > It's called "Ubuntu". People who want such a system are already happily > using Ubuntu, why would they want to use Fedora (which currently does NOT > work this way)? People are using Fedora because they are NOT happy with what > Ubuntu is doing. Therefore, the results of the poll didn't surprise me in > the least. Ubuntu's update strategy and policy is far far more strict than what has been proposed here. If you actually read it, you'd understand that. Also if you think that the only difference between Fedora and Ubuntu is our update strategy, then you've really got some problems. > > > Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent > > the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a > > worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole. > > Sure, it's a self-selecting group of people, but there's no evidence that > the result is not representative. Only better data could prove that claim. Absence of evidence is not evidence itself. That'd be argumentum ad ignoratiam, a logical fallacy. What we have is neither evidence that it is representative, nor evidence that it is not representative. Therefor the data cannot be used for either. > > > Proper scientific data collection is hard, really hard. To do it right > > would take a lot of time and engineering and even argument. I don't > > want to put in that time, > > Of course you don't. It would keep you from arbitrary claiming that "users > want" or even "need" exactly what YOU personally want. Sure, let's not get > those nasty FACTS get in the way of our dictatorship, eh? Actually it wouldn't. I have hard proof that some users want and need a more conservative approach to updates. We also have hard proof that some users don't. We don't have any proof as to which is a "larger" group of our user base. We cannot make a decision based on that value. Instead we can make a decision based on which type of user we'd like to target, whether we have those users now (which we do have some) or whether we'd like to get more of those users in the future. Our leadership can decide what approach to take, and which users to target. > > > nor do I think we could ever be able to truly have a good representation > > as we have no hard data on who all uses Fedora, and in which ways. > > Then imperfect data is what you'll have to work with. > > Kevin Kofler > -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> They aren't voted in. The range voting method does not vote people in >> or out.. it determines who the majority of people are most likely to >> 'live' with. Basically it tries to remove the emotional political ends >> and find who the 'silent' majority want. How much it does that is >> dependant on other factors but that is what it (and the Debian voting >> system) aim for. > > I wonder how strong this effect really is. I think many of us are giving > degenerate all-or-0 votes, I know I am. >From the math, and the people I asked to look at it.. the all or nothings round out the extremes so it is harder to push a candidate that the majority would not find acceptable. I am not a fan of range voting. I don't like the complexity but I will agree that it looks for a way to remove extreme partisanship from elections. It does not remove partisanship after an election, and I think that it requires like all things a motivated electorate: motivated to run and motivated to vote. In any democracy it takes more than one person to make large changes (one person on a board, etc). And it takes more than marches, flurries of emails, and polls. It takes time and compromise to persuade others and bring about any lasting change... and that change will not ever be as radical as some would like it. >From what I have studied of human history and psychology this seems to be about how it always works. Groups grow more change averse over time, and those that do not fit in must move to the frontiers to find new places to work out their energy. Eventually though they too become the status quo that some other group will fight against. -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. On 5/4/10, Thomas Janssen wrote: > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Rudolf Kastl wrote: >> 2010/5/4 Thomas Spura : >>> Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said: > > Sorry if i answer that one, i had to take one. > > The above people and more talked a lot about statistics, useful or > not. What i really miss here is just the truth. > The truth seems to me that, no matter what poll gets created and no > matter what result may be, some people have already decided the > future/direction of Fedora. > > -- > LG Thomas > > Dubium sapientiae initium > -- thank you chaarles zeitler Love is the law, love under will. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, 04 May 2010 19:10:38 +0200 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > That's another problem with the poll. "Adventurous" means different > > things to different people, so you can't assume that everybody is > > responding to the same thing. > > "Adventurous" has quite an implication of breakage. A milder term > would probably have given an even HIGHER percentage for "adventurous" > updates. > I would like to pick the packages that I'm adventurous with. Currently that's not very easy, either an adventurousness level is enabled in the repos or it isn't. That means my package manager gives me a flood of updates that I don't want. It would be nice to be able to filter that. For my objective, that is a package management issue, fedora policy doesn't need to be changed. For adventurous bug fixes, perhaps there should be a classification emergency-because-the-bug-breaks-most-of-the-system, which gets pushed with extreme priority. Of course this can result maintainers having to use this classification twice in a row. Bernd -- Bernd Stramm -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Jesse Keating wrote: > Bad data is worse than no data. I disagree. As "bad" as the data is, it can't be worse than claiming users want, or worse, "need", conservative updates without any evidence whatsoever as has been done! In fact I can bring you non-statistical evidence for the opposite: There is already a distribution which works the way people suggested (releases every 6 months, does not upgrade their stable releases to new upstream releases). It's called "Ubuntu". People who want such a system are already happily using Ubuntu, why would they want to use Fedora (which currently does NOT work this way)? People are using Fedora because they are NOT happy with what Ubuntu is doing. Therefore, the results of the poll didn't surprise me in the least. > Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent > the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a > worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole. Sure, it's a self-selecting group of people, but there's no evidence that the result is not representative. Only better data could prove that claim. > Proper scientific data collection is hard, really hard. To do it right > would take a lot of time and engineering and even argument. I don't > want to put in that time, Of course you don't. It would keep you from arbitrary claiming that "users want" or even "need" exactly what YOU personally want. Sure, let's not get those nasty FACTS get in the way of our dictatorship, eh? > nor do I think we could ever be able to truly have a good representation > as we have no hard data on who all uses Fedora, and in which ways. Then imperfect data is what you'll have to work with. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Any one of those can invalidate the mathematical tests you say to run > as they require random pools, controls on populations polled, and > non-leading questions. People keep telling you this and you seem to > keep ignoring it. I know the poll is far from perfect. But it is the best we have and it is a better basis for decision than somebody's guess which has no roots in reality at all. And unlike your motorcycle example, there is no provable bias into either direction. All you can say is that the results MAY be false due to imperfect methodology, you can't prove they are. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Thomas Janssen wrote: > Well, i don't want to kill your dreams, but to be a packager means nothing > ;) Yeah, even being a FESCo member is not of much use against a block of 8 other members and the whole Board all voting the same way. :-( And in fact this observation is what started this whole thread. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Jesse Keating wrote: > That's another problem with the poll. "Adventurous" means different > things to different people, so you can't assume that everybody is > responding to the same thing. "Adventurous" has quite an implication of breakage. A milder term would probably have given an even HIGHER percentage for "adventurous" updates. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > They aren't voted in. The range voting method does not vote people in > or out.. it determines who the majority of people are most likely to > 'live' with. Basically it tries to remove the emotional political ends > and find who the 'silent' majority want. How much it does that is > dependant on other factors but that is what it (and the Debian voting > system) aim for. I wonder how strong this effect really is. I think many of us are giving degenerate all-or-0 votes, I know I am. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Przemek Klosowski wrote: > An average user wants a stable, working software distribution, with > prompt patches and software enhancements. Since in general those are > conflicting requirements, the Fedora community has to apply engineering > judgement on what is the appropriate velocity of updates. I personally > like the processes and infrastructure that Fedora built to manage the > updates, even though I have seen that they don't prevent broken software > from getting in. My conclusion is to make it better, > not jettison it. The thing is, the Board's "vision" is NOT to keep things as they are, they want to make us much more conservative. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, 4 May 2010 11:51:11 +0100, Richard wrote: > There are also technical problems: You can't fit much text in the > Bodhi text box, and it can't be formatted except as a single > paragraph, and when you do add a comment to help someone it doesn't > seem to be seen by the original downvoter. Provided that the original downvoter entered a valid email address or used a Fedora Account, subsequently added comments are forwarded to the original downvoter and all previous voters/commenters. Some voters use invalid addresses however, and others apparently don't read every incoming mail from bodhi. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 17:05 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Of course the poll was just a sample. Many people who are for "adventurous" > updates also didn't vote in that poll. E.g. I didn't. And I'm definitely for > what that poll called "adventurous" updates, though I don't see the > "adventure" in pushing new upstream stable releases, and only when they're > known to show a decent level of backwards compatibility and no known > regressions. That's another problem with the poll. "Adventurous" means different things to different people, so you can't assume that everybody is responding to the same thing. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Thomas Janssen wrote: >> Maybe i'm wrong and nothing is decided, but why don't we do something >> then and get the data we need to decide the*right* direction in the >> first place? > > Because the "important" people of Fedora have deemed users to be > sub-standard humans. Only contributors (ie packagers) have any say in > the future of Fedora. In any case, a test user poll was going to be > created, but I have not heard about it in a while so I do not know if it > is still on the table. Well, i don't want to kill your dreams, but to be a packager means nothing ;) https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/thomasj -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Peter Hutterer wrote: > - I didn't vote in the fedoraforums poll because I trust FESCo to make > sane decisions without me having to randomly trawl forums to make sure I > can influence their decisions. So far that worked out for me. YMMV. > (Also, I didn't really notice the poll until the matching thread on > fedora-devel was already well into lala land.) Of course the poll was just a sample. Many people who are for "adventurous" updates also didn't vote in that poll. E.g. I didn't. And I'm definitely for what that poll called "adventurous" updates, though I don't see the "adventure" in pushing new upstream stable releases, and only when they're known to show a decent level of backwards compatibility and no known regressions. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Thomas Janssen wrote: > Maybe i'm wrong and nothing is decided, but why don't we do something > then and get the data we need to decide the*right* direction in the > first place? Because the "important" people of Fedora have deemed users to be sub-standard humans. Only contributors (ie packagers) have any say in the future of Fedora. In any case, a test user poll was going to be created, but I have not heard about it in a while so I do not know if it is still on the table. P.S. I am patiently awaiting packager status to earn my elitist status, but it seems reviewing is not as quick as it once was. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On 05/03/2010 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> It was none of that. All it gave us was info we already had. Some users >>> would like more adventurous stuff, while some users would not. We already >>> had that information, the poll told us nothing new. >> >> Now you may try to argue that the sample is biased, but you have no actual >> evidence towards that. > > Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent > the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a > worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole. Besides the statistical bias, I think this poll is flawed because it is sensitive to how the issue is worded, and even how people perceive the question; it's like those 'push polls' in politics. Consider those three formulations (*): - would you like more adventurous stuff in Fedora, to take advantage of improvements and fixes in the installed software - would you like more adventurous stuff, even if it sometimes introduced regressions - knowing that sooner or later it will totally break your system, would you like more adventurous stuff The results will be different for each question. They will also strongly depend on the cohort you will be asking. I am convinced that general users will be more conservative than the Fedora developers, who might answer 'yes' even to the third question, because they know enough to have a fighting chance to recover their systems. An average user wants a stable, working software distribution, with prompt patches and software enhancements. Since in general those are conflicting requirements, the Fedora community has to apply engineering judgement on what is the appropriate velocity of updates. I personally like the processes and infrastructure that Fedora built to manage the updates, even though I have seen that they don't prevent broken software from getting in. My conclusion is to make it better, not jettison it. p (*) I tried to bias the wording to show the range of possible interpretation, so please don't call me out on trolling. The third formulation, while admittedly alarmist, isn't completely unrealistic: c.f. the recent scary bug with a localization interaction that ended up removing large amount of packages, including yum IIRC. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Rudolf Kastl wrote: > 2010/5/4 Thomas Spura : >> Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: >>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote: >>> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said: Sorry if i answer that one, i had to take one. The above people and more talked a lot about statistics, useful or not. What i really miss here is just the truth. The truth seems to me that, no matter what poll gets created and no matter what result may be, some people have already decided the future/direction of Fedora. Otherwise they would have created such a poll (a nearly perfect one, since we have so much people here who know how to do that polls) and decided the direction because of that result. So why is there nobody with balls who says it out loud? Something like "Hey, like it or not, but we want to become a second Ubuntu". Or whatever goal it will be. All this, not telling too much, to beat about the bush, isn't going to help us further and will only create some bigger frustration. And the direction is obviously not clear to everyone, otherwise we wouldn't have such discussions. Maybe i'm wrong and nothing is decided, but why don't we do something then and get the data we need to decide the *right* direction in the first place? -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
2010/5/4 Thomas Spura : > Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote: >> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said: >> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this >> >> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who >> >> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only >> >> non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting. >> > >> > You claim you have taken grad-level statistics, but you don't appear to >> > understand how to select a sample. A self-selected sample on a web >> > forum (with no basis to show that forum members are representative of >> > the Fedora user base, much less that poll responders represent even the >> > forum users) does not lead to valid statistical results. It doesn't >> > matter how big the sample size is if the samples are not properly >> > selected. >> > >> > >> >> No, I exactly know how to select a sample. The forum based sample is >> "the" perfect sample. It is the users who talk. It is not the >> imaginary users, who you claim to exist. I do not care about your >> imaginary users. I do care about those who talk. Hence the statistic >> is significant. > > You assume here 'imaginary users' don't need to be heard or in your > words 'are stupid' and nobody should care about them. we can still imagine to hear the imaginary users but they wont manifest... and if they do... get your meds ;) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 22:37 -0400 schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said: > >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this > >> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who > >> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only > >> non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting. > > > > You claim you have taken grad-level statistics, but you don't appear to > > understand how to select a sample. A self-selected sample on a web > > forum (with no basis to show that forum members are representative of > > the Fedora user base, much less that poll responders represent even the > > forum users) does not lead to valid statistical results. It doesn't > > matter how big the sample size is if the samples are not properly > > selected. > > > > > > No, I exactly know how to select a sample. The forum based sample is > "the" perfect sample. It is the users who talk. It is not the > imaginary users, who you claim to exist. I do not care about your > imaginary users. I do care about those who talk. Hence the statistic > is significant. You assume here 'imaginary users' don't need to be heard or in your words 'are stupid' and nobody should care about them. There are also users out there, that don't like such huge threads with all the *_repetitive arguments_* and fight wars. Spamming a mailinglist doesn't change my mind, only ignoring a whole thread - independent from the subject. -Thomas -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 12:36:25AM -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 14:20 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > I resent being called an imaginary user. Being imaginary would seriously > > screw with my weekend plans. > > So tell us whether you take the stance on updates that is imputed to the > so-called "imaginary users". Sure, anything to get out of this imaginary state. - I'm quite happy with the package update policy, and I certainly don't want it to be more adventurous. Things break occasionally and that's fine, but anymore would reduce my productivity. - Having updates change my UI during a stable release cycle annoys me. Because the last thing I need on a busy morning is to figure out how the new UI works when what I really need to do is sift through my email. - I don't have a problem with minimum timeframes or stable karma. Because I've screwed up in the past pushing directly to stable, so these days I just send everything to updates-testing, even if I know nothing can possibly screw up. - IMO, being a maintainer for users goes two ways - I do the packaging work for them and try to fix their bugs, they do the koji voting for me. If they don't, then they'll just have to wait until I get the nag mail that reminds me again. - I used to hardly ever get enough karma to auto-push to stable and given the packages I maintain that was purely because users didn't bother to vote. I certainly have enough users. So far the world has failed to end because of lack of koji votes. - I now get enough karma to push to stable most of the times. I don't think the number of users has changed dramatically recently, so the only reason why I'm getting karma now is because people are putting in the effort. Good, that's how it's supposed to work. - I didn't vote in the fedoraforums poll because I trust FESCo to make sane decisions without me having to randomly trawl forums to make sure I can influence their decisions. So far that worked out for me. YMMV. (Also, I didn't really notice the poll until the matching thread on fedora-devel was already well into lala land.) - Most of the people I talk to and work with have a sanity level in the upper 50%. So even if there was to be a policy to prevent A, enforce B and require C, I'm sure I can convince the right people to work around it in a real emergency. (Such as telling a user to have a koji voting party to get the package pushed into stable quickly (and that update probably got the highest votes of any of my packages ever :). Just tell your friends it's like a Win 7 release party, that'll get the spirits up.) I've been mostly watching the flamewars about packaging policy and how Fedora is going to fall apart if we adopt this and that strategy to determine out whether it's me living in an alternative universe or most everyone else. Because while I agree that the process we have can be improved, there's a certain amount of drama visible that seems rather unnecessary. Cheers, Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Bernd Stramm said the following on 05/03/2010 07:13 PM Pacific Time: > On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:04:11 -0400 > Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote: >>> On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200 >>> Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> >>> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant majority, also considering the sample size N=183. >>> >>> I'm not sure what the poll was exactly, but a sample size of 183 >>> people makes it utterly meaningless considering the population size. >>> >> >> After all these years of academic studies, including graduate level >> Statistics courses, I disagree with your conclusion. >> >> Orcan > > I disagree with the disagreement. For one thing, the poll can only > measure anything about the population that knows about it. That > population is a very small percentage of the Fedora users. And there is > no reason to assume that population is representative of Fedora users. > Wow. It didn't take long :) http://poelcat.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/monty-python-does-the-fedora-development-list/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 14:20 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > I resent being called an imaginary user. Being imaginary would seriously > screw with my weekend plans. So tell us whether you take the stance on updates that is imputed to the so-called "imaginary users". -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:16:48PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> Jesse Keating wrote: > >> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50 > >> (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant majority, also > >> considering the sample size N=183. If you want me to actually compute some > >> p-values and do statistical tests, I can do that, but to me the numbers > >> look > >> obvious. > >> > >> Now you may try to argue that the sample is biased, but you have no actual > >> evidence towards that. > > > > Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent > > the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a > > worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole. > > > > Please stop talking about imaginary users who do not care to voice > themselves. This is of "zero" use. > > The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this > test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who > supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only > non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting. The imaginary > users do not voice themselves. If you change the policy, do you really > expect hundreds of thousands of imaginary users to become real, and > start yelling at you? No, they will still remain imaginary. I resent being called an imaginary user. Being imaginary would seriously screw with my weekend plans. Cheers, Peter > And perhaps, they will start thinking in the other direction and become > imaginary evidence for certain people to ignore some further > statistical data. This is nonsense. > > Sorry for my use of the word "stupid", but this biasedness claim > really falls in that category. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Mail Llists wrote: > On 05/03/2010 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> >> Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent >> the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a >> worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole. > > > FYI - Not true - I joined the forum for the sole purpose of voting in > that poll - everyone I know who voted joined the forum for the same > reason. The mailling list brought it to my attention. Actually what you did is considered the classic example of skewing the data by self-selection at this point it is no longer polling but 'voting'. It is the reason why many polls will say 'unscientific survey' when done this way... you can not apply standard tests and get answers that would be found scientifically valid. For a poll to be statistically valid, the population must be randomly polled. The population polled may be a 'self-selected' target (eg those who have registered to vote versus the general population) but it needs to be a semi-closed set. [EG polling surveys of registered voters after the deadline to register is considered to be more accurate than before so because the population will not suddenly grow afterwords.] Listen, I would have to say this no matter what the survey came out was. It was seriously flawed in ways that make using it worse than having no data at all. It also makes it harder to do a proper survey because of the emotional baggage that various people have attached for or against the first one. > We all follow the mailing lists - as presumably does FESCO - so the > sample is less biased than is being suggested. > > FESCO is not voted in by Aunt Tilly ... are they? They aren't voted in. The range voting method does not vote people in or out.. it determines who the majority of people are most likely to 'live' with. Basically it tries to remove the emotional political ends and find who the 'silent' majority want. How much it does that is dependant on other factors but that is what it (and the Debian voting system) aim for. In the end, being elected by a range vote is less of a mandate than an acceptance. -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On 05/03/2010 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent > the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a > worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole. FYI - Not true - I joined the forum for the sole purpose of voting in that poll - everyone I know who voted joined the forum for the same reason. The mailling list brought it to my attention. We all follow the mailing lists - as presumably does FESCO - so the sample is less biased than is being suggested. FESCO is not voted in by Aunt Tilly ... are they? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:37 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote: >> > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said: >> >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this >> >> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who >> >> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only >> >> non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting. >> > >> > You claim you have taken grad-level statistics, but you don't appear to >> > understand how to select a sample. A self-selected sample on a web >> > forum (with no basis to show that forum members are representative of >> > the Fedora user base, much less that poll responders represent even the >> > forum users) does not lead to valid statistical results. It doesn't >> > matter how big the sample size is if the samples are not properly >> > selected. >> > >> > >> >> No, I exactly know how to select a sample. The forum based sample is >> "the" perfect sample. It is the users who talk. It is not the >> imaginary users, who you claim to exist. I do not care about your >> imaginary users. I do care about those who talk. Hence the statistic >> is significant. > > You aren't a very good statistician if you care. thats an implicit bias. > ... which is far better than an imaginary bias. Orcan PS: No, I am not a statistician. But I know about the science of statistics to a good degree. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 22:37 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said: > >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this > >> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who > >> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only > >> non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting. > > > > You claim you have taken grad-level statistics, but you don't appear to > > understand how to select a sample. A self-selected sample on a web > > forum (with no basis to show that forum members are representative of > > the Fedora user base, much less that poll responders represent even the > > forum users) does not lead to valid statistical results. It doesn't > > matter how big the sample size is if the samples are not properly > > selected. > > > > > > No, I exactly know how to select a sample. The forum based sample is > "the" perfect sample. It is the users who talk. It is not the > imaginary users, who you claim to exist. I do not care about your > imaginary users. I do care about those who talk. Hence the statistic > is significant. You aren't a very good statistician if you care. thats an implicit bias. Dave. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said: >> The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this >> test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who >> supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only >> non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting. > > You claim you have taken grad-level statistics, but you don't appear to > understand how to select a sample. A self-selected sample on a web > forum (with no basis to show that forum members are representative of > the Fedora user base, much less that poll responders represent even the > forum users) does not lead to valid statistical results. It doesn't > matter how big the sample size is if the samples are not properly > selected. > > No, I exactly know how to select a sample. The forum based sample is "the" perfect sample. It is the users who talk. It is not the imaginary users, who you claim to exist. I do not care about your imaginary users. I do care about those who talk. Hence the statistic is significant. Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Once upon a time, Orcan Ogetbil said: > The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this > test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who > supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only > non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting. You claim you have taken grad-level statistics, but you don't appear to understand how to select a sample. A self-selected sample on a web forum (with no basis to show that forum members are representative of the Fedora user base, much less that poll responders represent even the forum users) does not lead to valid statistical results. It doesn't matter how big the sample size is if the samples are not properly selected. -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: >> Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of >> scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for >> decision making. > > It's the best data we have. And the statisticians I know say that some data is usually much worse than no data at all. When we used to go about poll data in class, the professors used a training story like this: Get on a motorcycle. Drive 40 miles per hour. Spit in the direction you are going in. Do it multiple times just to be sure. From that data give the direction of the wind for the countryside. Unless the wind is very very strong and your methods of getting the data very stringent, the best your poll will tell you is that 'the wind' was towards your face. It doesn't matter if at rest the wind was to your back. The poll has the following problems: 1) self selected pool of subjects being polled (who voted versus who did not. were the people polled or did anyone who could poll themselves) 2) unknown controls on who was polled versus who wasn't. (how many times did someone vote multiple times, how strong can you confirm that) 3) how neutral were the questions and how many ways were the questions asked so that language biases were tested? Any one of those can invalidate the mathematical tests you say to run as they require random pools, controls on populations polled, and non-leading questions. People keep telling you this and you seem to keep ignoring it. At best what you can say is the following: 183 people who use the Fedora Forum expressed their opinions on X,Y,Z questions. 78% of those people voted for X and 22% voted for Y. Due to methodologies the level of uncertainty is not easily quantifiable making it unknown how it represents the general population. Further study and better testing methodologies are required. I would say the same thing if the votes had been the other way.. and people were harping that this proved that slow updates was what people wanted. -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Jesse Keating wrote: >> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50 >> (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant majority, also >> considering the sample size N=183. If you want me to actually compute some >> p-values and do statistical tests, I can do that, but to me the numbers look >> obvious. >> >> Now you may try to argue that the sample is biased, but you have no actual >> evidence towards that. > > Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent > the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a > worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole. > Please stop talking about imaginary users who do not care to voice themselves. This is of "zero" use. The statistic talks. It doesn't only talk. It yells. Ignoring this test statistic in favor of the large pool of imaginary users, who supposedly think in the complete other direction, is not only non-scientific, stupid., but also self-conflicting. The imaginary users do not voice themselves. If you change the policy, do you really expect hundreds of thousands of imaginary users to become real, and start yelling at you? No, they will still remain imaginary. And perhaps, they will start thinking in the other direction and become imaginary evidence for certain people to ignore some further statistical data. This is nonsense. Sorry for my use of the word "stupid", but this biasedness claim really falls in that category. Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:04:11 -0400 Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote: > > On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200 > > Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > > >> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from > >> 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant > >> majority, also considering the sample size N=183. > > > > I'm not sure what the poll was exactly, but a sample size of 183 > > people makes it utterly meaningless considering the population size. > > > > After all these years of academic studies, including graduate level > Statistics courses, I disagree with your conclusion. > > Orcan I disagree with the disagreement. For one thing, the poll can only measure anything about the population that knows about it. That population is a very small percentage of the Fedora users. And there is no reason to assume that population is representative of Fedora users. I too have years of academic studies, and I even graduated from a very respectable institution with an advanced degree :) Bernd -- Bernd Stramm -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Bernd Stramm wrote: > On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200 > Kevin Kofler wrote: > > >> The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from >> 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant >> majority, also considering the sample size N=183. > > I'm not sure what the poll was exactly, but a sample size of 183 people > makes it utterly meaningless considering the population size. > After all these years of academic studies, including graduate level Statistics courses, I disagree with your conclusion. Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 01:58 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of > > scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for > > decision making. > > It's the best data we have. Bad data is worse than no data. > > > It was none of that. All it gave us was info we already had. Some users > > would like more adventurous stuff, while some users would not. We already > > had that information, the poll told us nothing new. > > The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50 > (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant majority, also > considering the sample size N=183. If you want me to actually compute some > p-values and do statistical tests, I can do that, but to me the numbers look > obvious. > > Now you may try to argue that the sample is biased, but you have no actual > evidence towards that. Of course the sample is biased. It's a sample of people who frequent the forums, that's a self selecting group of people, by no means a worthwhile representation of the Fedora user base as a whole. > > In the absence of better data, the data we have is what we should use as the > basis for our decision, not your personal opinion nor some imaginary "silent > majority" which never has been proven to exist. > > If you aren't happy with the data, start collecting some better one! > > Kevin Kofler > Proper scientific data collection is hard, really hard. To do it right would take a lot of time and engineering and even argument. I don't want to put in that time, nor do I think we could ever be able to truly have a good representation as we have no hard data on who all uses Fedora, and in which ways. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, 04 May 2010 01:58:34 +0200 Kevin Kofler wrote: > The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from > 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant > majority, also considering the sample size N=183. I'm not sure what the poll was exactly, but a sample size of 183 people makes it utterly meaningless considering the population size. It gives no useful information one way or the other. Bernd -- Bernd Stramm -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Jesse Keating wrote: > Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of > scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for > decision making. It's the best data we have. > It was none of that. All it gave us was info we already had. Some users > would like more adventurous stuff, while some users would not. We already > had that information, the poll told us nothing new. The poll told us an approximate proportion, which is so far from 50-50 (72.13%) that we clearly have a statistically significant majority, also considering the sample size N=183. If you want me to actually compute some p-values and do statistical tests, I can do that, but to me the numbers look obvious. Now you may try to argue that the sample is biased, but you have no actual evidence towards that. In the absence of better data, the data we have is what we should use as the basis for our decision, not your personal opinion nor some imaginary "silent majority" which never has been proven to exist. If you aren't happy with the data, start collecting some better one! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 00:01:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our > processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't > agree with you that the solution has to be some formal framework. If our > representatives actually, well, REPRESENTED their electorate, things would > work much better. Now of course none of the representatives knows who voted > for them because the vote is anonymous, but as you explained, there are > reasons to represent even those who did not vote for oneself, or at all, > anyway. I disagree, that that is the correct way to run a democratic republic. That is how most politicans work in the USA. They are more interested in getting elected than leading. They run polls continuously during election cycles so that they know what to tell voters. As a voter this sucks. You have no idea what such a person is going to do after getting elected, as they follow the whim of the polls. I'd much rather have a set of candidates say up front where they want to lead people and then decide which one gets to lead based on a vote. There are a few politicians who work this way in the USA, but not many. That's not to say a politician can't change their opinion based on new information, but cases where they do should be rare. I think people running for leadership positions for Fedora should actually lead and not just go along with the poll of the day. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
2010/5/4 Stephen John Smoogen : > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >>> As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you >> [snip] >> >> Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our >> processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't >> agree with you that the solution has to be some formal framework. If our >> representatives actually, well, REPRESENTED their electorate, things would >> work much better. Now of course none of the representatives knows who voted >> for them because the vote is anonymous, but as you explained, there are >> reasons to represent even those who did not vote for oneself, or at all, >> anyway. > > I have been telling you because I had hoped you would listen and > realize you were not just tilting at windmills but the wrong ones. > However it is clear to me that I am not able to communicate with you > or understand what you are trying to represent. After a year of > posting, all I can make out is some sort of quest towards some sort of > Anarchy/Anti-statist government in a place where it has little > possibility of occurring. if someone opposes some enforced order it doesent make him necasserily and anarchist... and as long as people in general need someone to vote and decide for them, we are still in the social and educational stone age. kind regards, Rudolf Kastl -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you > [snip] > > Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our > processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't > agree with you that the solution has to be some formal framework. If our > representatives actually, well, REPRESENTED their electorate, things would > work much better. Now of course none of the representatives knows who voted > for them because the vote is anonymous, but as you explained, there are > reasons to represent even those who did not vote for oneself, or at all, > anyway. I have been telling you because I had hoped you would listen and realize you were not just tilting at windmills but the wrong ones. However it is clear to me that I am not able to communicate with you or understand what you are trying to represent. After a year of posting, all I can make out is some sort of quest towards some sort of Anarchy/Anti-statist government in a place where it has little possibility of occurring. > In some cases, the people to represent are even our users, e.g. they asked > for "adventurous" updates, so why does the Board decide on a "vision" for > conservative updates? Are people that set on their personal preference that > they can't see that our users want something different? When less than 50% of the population votes, everyone can claim they represent the silent majority. And no, a set of emails to a mailing list does not make you non-silent. Hard work and continual effort is what counts in the long run. So in the end, elected members have to vote what they see best. If those views are not what the 'majority' believes to be right they will be voted out. -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 00:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > In some cases, the people to represent are even our users, e.g. they asked > for "adventurous" updates, so why does the Board decide on a "vision" for > conservative updates? Are people that set on their personal preference that > they can't see that our users want something different? Please stop banding about the forum poll as if it were some sort of scientific measure with meaningful results one could use as a basis for decision making. It was none of that. All it gave us was info we already had. Some users would like more adventurous stuff, while some users would not. We already had that information, the poll told us nothing new. You also seem to keep thinking that just because a decision was made that a person or some people disagree with, that their input was "ignored". That is not the case. Data can be reviewed and used as part of a decision process, even if that decision ultimately does not agree with you. You are using inflammatory words to try and stir up the pot because boy, it sure does feel good to be angry about something! And boy, it sure does feel good to get other people to feel angry too, even if they have no idea what they're angry about, or whom they are angry at. So quit with the dramatics already. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you [snip] Why are you telling all this stuff to me? I'm ALREADY complaining about our processes being undemocratic. The points you make are very real. But I don't agree with you that the solution has to be some formal framework. If our representatives actually, well, REPRESENTED their electorate, things would work much better. Now of course none of the representatives knows who voted for them because the vote is anonymous, but as you explained, there are reasons to represent even those who did not vote for oneself, or at all, anyway. In some cases, the people to represent are even our users, e.g. they asked for "adventurous" updates, so why does the Board decide on a "vision" for conservative updates? Are people that set on their personal preference that they can't see that our users want something different? Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
".
> - The prevailing opinion of the electorate of Fedora contributors keeps
> getting ignored. Feedback on the Fedora devel mailing list is never seen as
> in any way binding, it's often dismissed as noise or "trolling". The
> predominant opinion in FESCo is "you voted for us, now we get to do
> whatever
> we want", which is flawed in many ways:
> . It assumes there were true alternatives to vote for instead. This
> assumption does not look true to me.
> . It assumes the voters were aware of the positions of all the candidates.
> I'm fairly sure this was not the case. While I appreciate what has been
> done in an attempt to solve this issue (questionnaire, townhalls), this
> has proven by far insufficient to build an opinion on the candidates. I
> think there's a reason representative democracies normally work with
> parties/factions and I think something like that might help a lot,
> depending on what kind of factions would show up.
> . It assumes representative democracy is a well-working model in the first
> place, especially in its most hardcore form ("now we get to do whatever
> we
> want"). I believe elected representatives should really REPRESENT the
> people who voted them. I realize politicians aren't doing that, but are
> they really a good model to follow?
As I have pointed out in both public and private emails to you
1) This is not a representative democracy. For one thing the voting
method used does not promote the type of 'democracy' you are
expecting. At best people are voted against by not getting points put
to them.. not voted for. Range voting build out a 'statistical'
average of what it considered the best candidate(s) versus anyone
voting for or against someone/something. It like the Debian voting
methods are meant to be 'more fair' and thus to remove the emotional
baggage of 'voting for/against'. EG if you win a seat you were voted
by a vast majority of people and have to represent not just your views
but those that have no relation to yours.
2) This is not a federation or a representative democracy. It is at
best a limited meritocracy and at worst a constitutional monarchy. You
and many others keep thinking that some how by saying it is something
over and over again it will somehow become that. It takes a lot more
than thousands of repeated emails to change reality. It takes actual
thought and hard work on coming up with what you want, and then
compromising at some point.
3) Due to the fact that voting is not required for continual
'good-standing' membership in Fedora.. the vast majority of people do
not vote. People voted in such 'democracies' are supposed to not only
represent those that voted for them, but those who did not vote at
all. At times the best anyone can do is just vote what they think best
and hope that if they screw it up too badly they will get voted out
next time.
You and others want something different? Then start building a
constitution, framework, government that you want, but realize that
humans are a hard problem. They are mean, lazy, bigotted monsters that
can also be noble, hardworking, humane angels sometimes at the same
time.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> - I read this list every day, and am very mindful of feedback from >> developers. Any communication media is good, IMHO. My mailbox is also >> always open. I think many become discouraged with the mailing list >> these days because a few people reply to EVERY SINGLE POST with no >> new thoughts or information. Make a reasoned argument, wait and reply >> (at a high level) to feedback. Posting a reply to every post >> repeating yourself just makes less people able or interested in >> following the discussion. > > Then why did you not take such feedback into account when voting? Several > people, including some very experienced high-profile packagers, objected to > the new update policies. They have been ignored, by you and by the other 7 > members. Whoosh. Kevin Kofler -- there was an interesting msg in that paragraph. Some of the points you make are valid, and worthy of discussion. Reasonable people may disagree on them, and you'll have to find a way to work within a community where people might disagree on some things with you. Without a particular need to repeat, restate and re-explain your points 100 times, with escalating hyperbole. You are good communicating, so (at least I, perhaps we) generally get what you mean, in your first post. cheers, m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Alex Hudson wrote: > I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the > mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot > like a vocal minority, Be careful about meeting subjective opinion with differing subjective opinion. How many individuals vote in the FESCO election? How man individuals chime in on heated devel-list threads? When the voting population is itself a minority of a larger community its difficult to know what minority opinion is big enough to be representative of general thought. it could be argued that the voting record is itself another vocal minority opinion. The general election format that FESCO uses does lend itself to exactly the sort of problems Kevin thinks he's seeing.. even in the brick and mortar world. There's no defined constituencies for any candidate..no topological separation of the voting demographic that helps you point to a specific member of the committee as your representative. It can lead to a sense of disconnectedness..even in the brick and mortar world...especially when there is a strong expectation of representative accountability. But I think your entirely correct about an organized slate of candidates being the correct path to take to address the expressed general concern. This is typically how changes in direction in brick and mortar general election scenarios are carried forward. An organized slate of candidates with a stated agenda. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by >> its name? GNOME is just A desktop, it's NOT "the" desktop. > > It's the desktop with the most development and integration work > performed in the distribution, and hence it gets to be the default. This > is, of course, unfair. No, it's not unfair. That are just facts. And it can and should stay as the default as long as the GNOME desktop gets the most development and integration. It's just about "Desktop". It's the GNOME-Desktop, since there are more. If the GNOME guys like it or not, they are not alone ;) -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 19:34 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Alex Hudson wrote: > > I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the > > mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot > > like a vocal minority > > I think it's quite cheap to write off the mailing list consensus as a "vocal > minority" with no evidence for such a conclusion. No, not really. Consensus of "the list" is not the same as consensus of the participants of a particular discussion - if anything, the evidence has to come the other way that a particular discussion does in any way reflect the balance of developer opinion. I'm not saying that opinions on the list are worthless; quite the contrary. I just don't think it constitutes evidence one way or another as to the balance of opinion of the members of the list. > > and some of these issues (e.g., confusing the name of the Desktop spin > > with others) have been pretty much done to death and certainly aren't > > "obvious" to me. > > Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by > its name? This has been done to death, surely? For one, I don't think applications should get chosen for the Desktop spin for being GNOME: e.g., I wouldn't choose Epiphany over Firefox, even though it's more lightweight, better integrated, etc. Prioritizing non-GNOME applications doesn't seem right for something you would label "GNOME spin". Cheers Alex. -- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by > its name? GNOME is just A desktop, it's NOT "the" desktop. It's the desktop with the most development and integration work performed in the distribution, and hence it gets to be the default. This is, of course, unfair. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Kevin Fenzi wrote: > - I don't distrust our maintainers. I very much value the work they do > and without them we would have no Fedora. However, I also want to > help them do the right thing for our users (who I also would like to > see happy). I'm open to ideas on how to reduce 'red tape' for them, > while increasing the standard of packages for our users. I know you > have many such ideas, but I don't agree that we should not have > testing or help our maintainers find problems before our users get > the package. Helping our maintainers is one thing, FORCING them to work the way FESCo wants is another. And sadly, FESCo's update policy does the latter, NOT the former. "Helping" means ADVISING people, not REQUIRING them to follow some bureaucratic process. Update guidelines should be purely informative, not hardcoded in Bodhi as you, the other 8 FESCo members, decided (over my strong dissent). And again, it is simply NOT TRUE that I'm arguing that "we should not have testing". I'm arguing that SOME updates should, at the maintainer's discretion, bypass testing because the urgency largely outweighs the risk (be it because the risk is extremely small, because the urgency is extremely high or both). The maintainer is in the best position to make such a call. I DO complain in the rare occasions where some update which breaks things is pushed directly to stable. But it means the maintainer screwed up and we need to teach the maintainer how to avoid such a mistake the next time, not to outright ban all direct stable pushes, many of which are legitimate. (In the cases I complained about, it was always quite obvious to me, and I believe to any sufficiently experienced maintainer, that the decision to push to stable was inappropriate, even without the hindsight.) But I ALSO complain when an urgent fix is NOT pushed to stable in a timely manner, sitting around in testing for no good reason. > - I read this list every day, and am very mindful of feedback from > developers. Any communication media is good, IMHO. My mailbox is also > always open. I think many become discouraged with the mailing list > these days because a few people reply to EVERY SINGLE POST with no > new thoughts or information. Make a reasoned argument, wait and reply > (at a high level) to feedback. Posting a reply to every post > repeating yourself just makes less people able or interested in > following the discussion. Then why did you not take such feedback into account when voting? Several people, including some very experienced high-profile packagers, objected to the new update policies. They have been ignored, by you and by the other 7 members. > - I would like to hope that we can look beyond ourselves. We > shouldn't be looking at "My packages" or "My Desktop". We should all be > working for a Fedora that we can be proud of our users using. We should > be consistent about how much testing we do and when we update things so > ALL our users will know whats going on. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you at all about this kind of bureaucracy being the way to make our users happy. I strongly believe our maintainers are the ones who know best how to make their users happy, in particular, what to push to users of the stable updates and when. As for consistency: our users have explicitly asked for non-conservative, or even "adventurous", updates, see Adam Williamson's poll, so I believe the way to make our users happy while being consistent is to consistently push new versions as updates unless there's a reason not to (and I already detailed possible reasons not to push an update on several occasions, so I won't do it again). But of course this should also be an indicative policy and ultimately the maintainer's decision, as they know best whether there's a reason not to push the update. We should just make it clear that the general policy is for new versions to be pushed unless there's a reason not to. > Can we Improve things? I absolutely think so, but change takes time, > well reasoned argument, and people willing to do the work to make it > happen. True change mainly takes a change in attitude in FESCo. Otherwise all the "change" we'll get will be towards more and more bureaucracy. :-( The fact that a change requires implementation work is a strong hint that the change may be technobureaucratic. Most non-bureaucratic approaches require little to no work to implement. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Alex Hudson wrote: > I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the > mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot > like a vocal minority I think it's quite cheap to write off the mailing list consensus as a "vocal minority" with no evidence for such a conclusion. > and some of these issues (e.g., confusing the name of the Desktop spin > with others) have been pretty much done to death and certainly aren't > "obvious" to me. Why should we not call the GNOME spin, and the GNOME desktop in general, by its name? GNOME is just A desktop, it's NOT "the" desktop. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 02:20:51AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: [...] Kevin, I was rooting for you, and I particularly agree with you on the issues of trusting maintainers and "devolving" power down to packaging groups and SIGs. It was very disheartening also to see so many votes going N-to-1. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
I'm sorry you are unhappy. I can only speak for myself here, but: - I don't distrust our maintainers. I very much value the work they do and without them we would have no Fedora. However, I also want to help them do the right thing for our users (who I also would like to see happy). I'm open to ideas on how to reduce 'red tape' for them, while increasing the standard of packages for our users. I know you have many such ideas, but I don't agree that we should not have testing or help our maintainers find problems before our users get the package. - I read this list every day, and am very mindful of feedback from developers. Any communication media is good, IMHO. My mailbox is also always open. I think many become discouraged with the mailing list these days because a few people reply to EVERY SINGLE POST with no new thoughts or information. Make a reasoned argument, wait and reply (at a high level) to feedback. Posting a reply to every post repeating yourself just makes less people able or interested in following the discussion. - I would like to hope that we can look beyond ourselves. We shouldn't be looking at "My packages" or "My Desktop". We should all be working for a Fedora that we can be proud of our users using. We should be consistent about how much testing we do and when we update things so ALL our users will know whats going on. Can we Improve things? I absolutely think so, but change takes time, well reasoned argument, and people willing to do the work to make it happen. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 02:20 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > But if you want to see the kind of change to FESCo I'd like to see, > it'll take a faction of at least 5 people to make it happen. Surely this is the point: if there are not sufficient candidates with a particular point of view, that's hardly FESCo's (or anyone else's) fault. I think it's a bit disingenuous to talk about prevailing opinion of the mailing list otherwise; to me a lot of the discussion looks an awful lot like a vocal minority, and some of these issues (e.g., confusing the name of the Desktop spin with others) have been pretty much done to death and certainly aren't "obvious" to me. Cheers Alex. -- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Kevin Kofler wrote: > I do not wish to stand for such a committee anymore Kevin, thank you for your attempts and for raising attention on the difficulties you have faced. If some of the time you save by not doing meetings will be spent on additional excellent technical contributions of yours, Fedora will actually gain something. So, if your decision is both positive for you and positive for Fedora, there is nothing to be too sad about. Respectfully, -- Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > Wait, I thought libvdpau had a VA-API backend? AFAIK, no, there's only the opposite (a VDPAU backend for VA-API). And VA-API also has no implementation in Free drivers other than a proof of concept for the intel driver which: * only supports MPEG 2, no MPEG 4, * is not a true hardware implementation, but implemented as shaders, and thus subject to software patents, which makes it unshippable in Fedora. > And I thought Fedora included a crippled version of mplayer in its > repositories? We actually don't. > Either way, it is true that VDPAU currently only works with MPEG formats, > but nothing says that the library can't be modified to support other > formats, does it? AFAIK, all of the primitives supported are operations which are used only in MPEG (most of them patented). Acceleration for Theora would have to be done with a completely different API, and probably exclusively based on shaders as no existing graphics card has a dedicated video unit with Theora support. So the best way to accelerate Theora is probably to ignore those APIs entirely and work directly with OpenGL shaders. Those APIs are focused on what GPU video units do in hardware and that's just MPEG. > If I'm wrong, then shouldn't it be RPM Fusion? That's my point! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Kevin, one way you might help for this election is add some questions to the question that you think are important for voters to know about the candidate. So far only Paul and I have added questions, and I really think the community needs to be more involved here. As a reminder it's at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F14_elections_questionnaire -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
> > Therefore, I will stay in office until the end of my term, but I will not be > available for reelection. I would like to thank the people who voted for me > last > year for their support and apologize to those who would have liked to vote for > me this time for not giving them this opportunity. If you would like a KDE SIG > person in FESCo, vote for Steven M. Parrish (and vote for Rex Dieter for the > Board). But if you want to see the kind of change to FESCo I'd like to see, > it'll take a faction of at least 5 people to make it happen. > > Kevin Kofler > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > I'm sorry to hear this as well. Fedora KDE has made great strides and is in my opinion the premiere KDE distro. Thanks for your work! -- Mark Bidewell http://www.linkedin.com/in/markbidewell -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Hi Kevin, On 3 May 2010 01:20, Kevin Kofler wrote: > You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that the > nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show up on > the > list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence, the decision > not > to run for another term was intentional, for several reasons: I'm sorry to read this. Dissent is important and I for one believe that someone fighting for the causes you represented was important. As you have admitted, you are not a committee person so I hope you find greater satisfaction in your change of direction. Being an engineer will _always_ be more fun than being a bureaucrat. Regards -- Christopher Brown -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
2010/5/3 Kevin Kofler : > Hi, > > You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that the > nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show up on > the > list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence, the decision > not > to run for another term was intentional, for several reasons: > Hi Kevin, i really like your motivations for being part of the fesco, and voted and supported you even if i dont agree on many of your points. I have the impression many people feels the same frustration like me reading your open letter. However, in your message you could have proposed something that would change the way fesco works, instead of returning on those issues which have been discussed, and voted, following the rules. I mean something like giving each seater the ability to throw a veto once, or discuss and vote issues on separate meetings, or any other different idea you could think of after your experience at the fesco. -- Guido Grazioli Via Parri 11 48011 - Alfonsine (RA) Mobile: +39 347 1017202 (10-18) Key FP = 7040 F398 0DED A737 7337 DAE1 12DC A698 5E81 2278 Linked in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/guidograzioli -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Monday 03 May 2010 02:20:51 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Hi, > > You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that > the nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show > up on the list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence, > the decision not to run for another term was intentional, for several > reasons: > > * When I ran for election a year ago, one of my reasons for running, and > also something I made part of my campaign, was that it shouldn't always be > the same people who are sitting on FESCo. We have a much higher number of > active contributors than FESCo seats, so it makes sense to see some > turnover happening. So it would be very hypocritical from me to attempt to > sit another year on FESCo myself, now that I'm myself a FESCo "veteran". > > * I have never been a committee person and have always hated sitting on > meetings. I have done it anyway for a year because I believed it to be > important for the good of the project. But I'm really fed up of those > meetings (I'm feeling burned out) and prefer focusing on more practical, > less political areas of Fedora. The fact that I don't feel my presence in > those meetings being of much if any use (more on that later) doesn't help > either. > > * When looking back at what happened over the year I've been in office, I > have a feeling that I have been able to acheive basically nothing: > - The vast majority of votes were either unanimous or 8-1 against me. In > both cases, my vote was entirely redundant. Even for more contested votes, > my vote hardly ever mattered. > - Any attempts to discuss those issues where everyone was against me went > nowhere. In most cases, people rushed out a vote without even > considering the real issue at hand and then shot down any discussion with > "we already voted, we want to move on". In those few cases where there > actually was a discussion, my position was always dismissed as being > ridiculous and not even worth considering, my arguments, no matter how > strong, were entirely ignored. > - Basically any proposal I filed was systematically shot down. Even > things which should be obvious such as: > . calling GNOME by its name rather than the generic "Desktop" or > . eliminating the useless bureaucratic red tape of FESCo ratification > for FPC guidelines which just wastes everyone's time and constitutes pure > process inefficiency > got only incomprehension. > I have come to the conclusion that it is just plain impossible for a > single person to change FESCo's ways and that therefore I am just wasting > my time there. > > * I am very unhappy about FESCo's recent (and not so recent, which were > what made me run in the first place) directions. The trend is steady > towards bureaucracy and centralization: > - Maintainers are continuously being distrusted. It all started with the > provenpackager policy, where every single provenpackager has to be > voted in by a FESCo majority vote, as opposed to letting any sponsor > approve people as provenpackagers as originally planned, or just opening > all our packages to everyone as was the case in the old Extras. From > there, things pretty much degenerated and we're now at a point where FESCo > no longer trusts maintainers to know when an update to the packages they > maintain is stable, instead insisting on automatically-enforced > bureaucracy which will never be as reliable and effective as a human. The > fact that we trust our maintainers used to be one of the core values of > the Fedora community. It has been replaced by control-freakiness and > paranoia. > - All the power in Fedora is being centralized into 2 major committees: > the Board and FESCo. FESCo is responsible for a lot of things all taking > up meeting time, leading to lengthy meetings and little time for > discussion. Many of those things could be handled better in a more > decentralized way. Power should be delegated to SIGs and technical > committees wherever possible, FESCo should only handle issues where no > reponsible subcommittee can be found or where there is disagreement among > affected committees. In particular, I suggest that: > . FPC guidelines should be passed directly by FPC, only concrete > objections should get escalated to FESCo. > . membership in packager-sponsors and provenpackager should be handled > by the sponsors, with a process to be defined by them (my suggestion: > provenpackager should take 1 sponsor to approve and no possibility to > object or veto, sponsor should take 3 sponsors to approve and objections > can be escalated to FESCo). > . features should get approved by the responsible SIG or committee > (e.g. FPC for RPM features, KDE SIG for KDE features etc.). The feature > wrangler should decide on a SIG to hand the feature to for approval, or > even accept features filed directly into "approved" by the responsible > SIG, and FESCo would be responsible only wher
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > > Though, there are some instances where the prevailing opinion should be > > ignored, when there is no solid evidence to back it up, e.g. Mono and the > > like. > > Indeed, I also think defending freedom is important (and it was part of my > campaign). But I've also been unhappy with FESCo's decisions in that > domain, > e.g.: > * libvdpau was approved for Fedora. This is a library which: > - only accelerates decoding patent-encumbered MPEG family video codecs. >ALL software which uses that is in RPM Fusion, not Fedora, anyway. > - has no actual Free Software implementations. It is ONLY implemented by >proprietary drivers. > So what does Fedora have to gain from this pseudo-Free library? > * in at least 2 occasions, so-called "Open Core" [1] crippleware has been > not only approved for Fedora (which makes sense, as IMHO we should accept > everything under a Free license and with no patent issues as a Fedora > package), but advertised as a Fedora Feature, which I consider to be > completely counterproductive, as it gives free press coverage to such > crippleware and sends a message to companies that releasing some crippled > shareware version under a Free Software license is enough to get your > product advertised as Free or "Open Source" all over the planet. My > complaints about giving free advertising to such crippleware have been > entirely ignored. > > [1] http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html > >Kevin Kofler > > Wait, I thought libvdpau had a VA-API backend? And I thought Fedora included a crippled version of mplayer in its repositories? Either way, it is true that VDPAU currently only works with MPEG formats, but nothing says that the library can't be modified to support other formats, does it? If I'm wrong, then shouldn't it be RPM Fusion? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > Though, there are some instances where the prevailing opinion should be > ignored, when there is no solid evidence to back it up, e.g. Mono and the > like. Indeed, I also think defending freedom is important (and it was part of my campaign). But I've also been unhappy with FESCo's decisions in that domain, e.g.: * libvdpau was approved for Fedora. This is a library which: - only accelerates decoding patent-encumbered MPEG family video codecs. ALL software which uses that is in RPM Fusion, not Fedora, anyway. - has no actual Free Software implementations. It is ONLY implemented by proprietary drivers. So what does Fedora have to gain from this pseudo-Free library? * in at least 2 occasions, so-called "Open Core" [1] crippleware has been not only approved for Fedora (which makes sense, as IMHO we should accept everything under a Free license and with no patent issues as a Fedora package), but advertised as a Fedora Feature, which I consider to be completely counterproductive, as it gives free press coverage to such crippleware and sends a message to companies that releasing some crippled shareware version under a Free Software license is enough to get your product advertised as Free or "Open Source" all over the planet. My complaints about giving free advertising to such crippleware have been entirely ignored. [1] http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Hi, > > You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that > the > nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show up > on the > list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence, the decision > not > to run for another term was intentional, for several reasons: > > * When I ran for election a year ago, one of my reasons for running, and > also > something I made part of my campaign, was that it shouldn't always be the > same > people who are sitting on FESCo. We have a much higher number of active > contributors than FESCo seats, so it makes sense to see some turnover > happening. So it would be very hypocritical from me to attempt to sit > another > year on FESCo myself, now that I'm myself a FESCo "veteran". > > * I have never been a committee person and have always hated sitting on > meetings. I have done it anyway for a year because I believed it to be > important for the good of the project. But I'm really fed up of those > meetings > (I'm feeling burned out) and prefer focusing on more practical, less > political > areas of Fedora. The fact that I don't feel my presence in those meetings > being of much if any use (more on that later) doesn't help either. > > * When looking back at what happened over the year I've been in office, I > have a > feeling that I have been able to acheive basically nothing: > - The vast majority of votes were either unanimous or 8-1 against me. In > both >cases, my vote was entirely redundant. Even for more contested votes, my >vote hardly ever mattered. > - Any attempts to discuss those issues where everyone was against me went >nowhere. In most cases, people rushed out a vote without even > considering >the real issue at hand and then shot down any discussion with "we > already >voted, we want to move on". In those few cases where there actually was > a >discussion, my position was always dismissed as being ridiculous and not >even worth considering, my arguments, no matter how strong, were > entirely >ignored. > - Basically any proposal I filed was systematically shot down. Even things >which should be obvious such as: >. calling GNOME by its name rather than the generic "Desktop" or >. eliminating the useless bureaucratic red tape of FESCo ratification > for > FPC guidelines which just wastes everyone's time and constitutes pure > process inefficiency >got only incomprehension. > I have come to the conclusion that it is just plain impossible for a > single > person to change FESCo's ways and that therefore I am just wasting my time > there. > > * I am very unhappy about FESCo's recent (and not so recent, which were > what > made me run in the first place) directions. The trend is steady towards > bureaucracy and centralization: > - Maintainers are continuously being distrusted. It all started with the >provenpackager policy, where every single provenpackager has to be voted > in >by a FESCo majority vote, as opposed to letting any sponsor approve > people >as provenpackagers as originally planned, or just opening all our > packages >to everyone as was the case in the old Extras. From there, things pretty >much degenerated and we're now at a point where FESCo no longer trusts >maintainers to know when an update to the packages they maintain is > stable, >instead insisting on automatically-enforced bureaucracy which will never > be >as reliable and effective as a human. The fact that we trust our > maintainers >used to be one of the core values of the Fedora community. It has been >replaced by control-freakiness and paranoia. > - All the power in Fedora is being centralized into 2 major committees: > the >Board and FESCo. FESCo is responsible for a lot of things all taking up >meeting time, leading to lengthy meetings and little time for > discussion. >Many of those things could be handled better in a more decentralized > way. >Power should be delegated to SIGs and technical committees wherever >possible, FESCo should only handle issues where no reponsible > subcommittee >can be found or where there is disagreement among affected committees. > In >particular, I suggest that: >. FPC guidelines should be passed directly by FPC, only concrete > objections > should get escalated to FESCo. >. membership in packager-sponsors and provenpackager should be handled > by > the sponsors, with a process to be defined by them (my suggestion: > provenpackager should take 1 sponsor to approve and no possibility to > object or veto, sponsor should take 3 sponsors to approve and > objections > can be escalated to FESCo). >. features should get approved by the responsible SIG or committee (e.g. > FPC for RPM features, KDE SIG for KDE features etc.). The feature > wrangler > should decide
