Dear Board of Directors,
Several times over the past months I have raised an issue here - what I believe to be the right channel for raising issues to the board - and gotten complete radio silence.
This is intensely frustrating.
Now, for me, personally, I can always to go to Karsten, or Jim, or to the IRC channel where I know that lots of the board hang out, and I can bug individual board members, and be a burr under their saddle until stuff gets done. This *cannot* be the means of engagement for our community members who don't have that kind of privilege and access.
Is there (or, rather, should there be, since I know there isn't) a board@centos.org mailing list where I can raise an issue directly to the board - a place where I can actually discuss an issue with the board, and expect a response?
We (it's not just me asking) would like to know what is the *correct* way to solicit a decision from the Board, so that people can move forward with something, rather than just waiting and wondering.
Thanks.
At the first place, what kind of "issue" do you speak of ? At the second place you tell you are not the only one to claim for replies. Where are the others ? Whey do they not countersign ?
And at the third place I should say that tou can't ignore who are the people in charge. So why not just send a mail to them instead of using this public list ?
Do you hear me Fabian and otjers ?
Le Tue May 05 2020 20:31:22 GMT+0200 (CEST), Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com a écrit :
Dear Board of Directors,
Several times over the past months I have raised an issue here - what I believe to be the right channel for raising issues to the board - and gotten complete radio silence.
This is intensely frustrating.
Now, for me, personally, I can always to go to Karsten, or Jim, or to the IRC channel where I know that lots of the board hang out, and I can bug individual board members, and be a burr under their saddle until stuff gets done. This *cannot* be the means of engagement for our community members who don't have that kind of privilege and access.
Is there (or, rather, should there be, since I know there isn't) a board@centos.org mailing list where I can raise an issue directly to the board - a place where I can actually discuss an issue with the board, and expect a response?
We (it's not just me asking) would like to know what is the *correct* way to solicit a decision from the Board, so that people can move forward with something, rather than just waiting and wondering.
Thanks.
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 08:28 +0000, john tatt via CentOS-devel wrote:
So why not just send a mail to them instead of using this public list ?
I think the intention of this is to foster an open communication at all levels. Find a way to make it happen. Something that is undergoing but still far from happening. The lack of open communication has caused painful losses in the community and it is a sensitive topic for many people here. Because of your tone, I guess you are not familiar with these things nor sensitive in a way with the needs. Please respect those whom have the courage to rise the voice in this matters.
Thanks,
I must lead with this: It is with great trepidation that I even write this message, because I have no desire to burn bridges. I currently enjoy a cordial working relationship with everyone on the board, and, without exception, have great respect for each of them personally. But it is my job to point out that the board's method of engaging with the community isn't working.
On 5/6/20 4:28 AM, john tatt via CentOS-devel wrote:
At the first place, what kind of "issue" do you speak of ?
1) The website redesign 2) The logo design process (we finally got a response from one individual board member, but as yet no *decision* from the board) 3) The open question as to what the board will do about the stated policy that Red Hat must hold a majority of seats, given that one board member has announced that he is leaving Red Hat.
There are others, but those are the three most recent, and the most pressing.
Mostly, though, in this email, I do not seek to address those issues. I seek to find out the correct way that the board wishes for us to engage with them.
At the second place you tell you are not the only one to claim for replies. Where are the others ? Whey do they not countersign ?
Two reasons.
One, it's literally my job. I am paid, full time, to be the community manager. That means that it's my job to represent the community's interests, both externally (ie, to the public), internally (ie, to the board and community), and to our major financial partner, Red Hat.
Two, because the people in question have expressed frustration enough times that they have quit trying. To me, this is a tragedy.
And at the third place I should say that tou can't ignore who are the people in charge. So why not just send a mail to them instead of using this public list ?
I am most definitely not ignoring the people in charge. They have told me that this is the correct place to raise issues to their attention. But it's not working.
On the one hand, I *do* send them email directly. Frequently. And I have weekly meetings with several of them. But that is not how open source projects work. Open source projects are, by name and philosophy, open. Privately emailing board members is not transparent.
Secondly, most of you, the community, don't have the level of access that I have. It's not fair to assume that any one of the community can, or should, email or call our board members directly. We need a process by which the community can raise issues, publicly, transparently, and expect that we will be heard.
Do you hear me Fabian and others ?
Fabian is not a board member. If, by "others", you me the other board members, then I ask the same question: Do you hear me?
Please understand that I have no anger or animosity here. Just frustration, and a desire to improve *our* project's communication and processes. I am available, and at your disposal, for any way in which I can be part of that improvement.
On 5/6/20 8:31 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
I must lead with this: It is with great trepidation that I even write this message, because I have no desire to burn bridges. I currently enjoy a cordial working relationship with everyone on the board, and, without exception, have great respect for each of them personally. But it is my job to point out that the board's method of engaging with the community isn't working.
On 5/6/20 4:28 AM, john tatt via CentOS-devel wrote:
At the first place, what kind of "issue" do you speak of ?
- The website redesign
- The logo design process (we finally got a response from one
individual board member, but as yet no *decision* from the board) 3) The open question as to what the board will do about the stated policy that Red Hat must hold a majority of seats, given that one board member has announced that he is leaving Red Hat.
There are others, but those are the three most recent, and the most pressing.
Mostly, though, in this email, I do not seek to address those issues. I seek to find out the correct way that the board wishes for us to engage with them.
At the second place you tell you are not the only one to claim for replies. Where are the others ? Whey do they not countersign ?
Two reasons.
One, it's literally my job. I am paid, full time, to be the community manager. That means that it's my job to represent the community's interests, both externally (ie, to the public), internally (ie, to the board and community), and to our major financial partner, Red Hat.
Two, because the people in question have expressed frustration enough times that they have quit trying. To me, this is a tragedy.
And at the third place I should say that tou can't ignore who are the people in charge. So why not just send a mail to them instead of using this public list ?
I am most definitely not ignoring the people in charge. They have told me that this is the correct place to raise issues to their attention. But it's not working.
On the one hand, I *do* send them email directly. Frequently. And I have weekly meetings with several of them. But that is not how open source projects work. Open source projects are, by name and philosophy, open. Privately emailing board members is not transparent.
Secondly, most of you, the community, don't have the level of access that I have. It's not fair to assume that any one of the community can, or should, email or call our board members directly. We need a process by which the community can raise issues, publicly, transparently, and expect that we will be heard.
Do you hear me Fabian and others ?
Fabian is not a board member. If, by "others", you me the other board members, then I ask the same question: Do you hear me?
Please understand that I have no anger or animosity here. Just frustration, and a desire to improve *our* project's communication and processes. I am available, and at your disposal, for any way in which I can be part of that improvement.
Rich,
We have 4 people who are working on 'CentOS Linux' .. and 'CentOS Stream'.
We just had Red Hat Summit (the CentOS team had major deliverables for that) and 2 major point releases drop (RHEL 7.8 and 8.2 releases) .. as well as creating the entire CentOS Stream process.
There is really just not a lot of cycles right now for logos or website redesign talk.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On 5/6/20 10:37 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
We have 4 people who are working on 'CentOS Linux' .. and 'CentOS Stream'.
We just had Red Hat Summit (the CentOS team had major deliverables for that) and 2 major point releases drop (RHEL 7.8 and 8.2 releases) .. as well as creating the entire CentOS Stream process.
With all respect and kudos for what I know was a lot of work - there are 10 directors.
There is really just not a lot of cycles right now for logos or website redesign talk.
Sure. I get that. What I'm asking, though, is how we, the community, should engage with you, the board, and how we can know that issues raised are even on your list to be addressed, some day, and when some day might be.
Nobody is asking for next-day service. What is being asked (and, again, this isn't just me, I'm speaking for people who, for whatever reason, contact me off-list and don't feel comfortable speaking up here - which is itself troubling) is how we know that you're hearing us.
On 06/05/2020 17:01, Rich Bowen wrote:
Sure. I get that. What I'm asking, though, is how we, the community, should engage with you, the board, and how we can know that issues raised are even on your list to be addressed, some day, and when some day might be.
I am happy to try an email list. The board meets monthly, for things that dont need a sync, we should be able to make progress faster.
regards,
I'm inclined to prefer a ticketing system, honestly. That way the things that are open or to-be-done are easily viewable and up-front. We can mark issues done, closed, whatever, and people can interact in a way that's visible without hunting through a variety of threads for a decision. It also means (in the specific instance of web work) we can review, comment, and mark up code done and contributed either as pull requests, linked items, etc.
CNCF and a number of other projects already use such a model.
On 5/6/20 9:59 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/05/2020 17:01, Rich Bowen wrote:
Sure. I get that. What I'm asking, though, is how we, the community, should engage with you, the board, and how we can know that issues raised are even on your list to be addressed, some day, and when some day might be.
I am happy to try an email list. The board meets monthly, for things that dont need a sync, we should be able to make progress faster.
regards,
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 06/05/2020 18:05, Jim Perrin wrote:
I'm inclined to prefer a ticketing system, honestly. That way the things that are open or to-be-done are easily viewable and up-front. We can mark issues done, closed, whatever, and people can interact in a way that's visible without hunting through a variety of threads for a decision. It also means (in the specific instance of web work) we can review, comment, and mark up code done and contributed either as pull requests, linked items, etc.
that works too,
- KB
On 5/6/20 1:07 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/05/2020 18:05, Jim Perrin wrote:
I'm inclined to prefer a ticketing system, honestly. That way the things that are open or to-be-done are easily viewable and up-front. We can mark issues done, closed, whatever, and people can interact in a way that's visible without hunting through a variety of threads for a decision. It also means (in the specific instance of web work) we can review, comment, and mark up code done and contributed either as pull requests, linked items, etc.
that works too,
So what's the next step here? Should we ask CPE to stand something up? Can we create a new 'Project' on bugs.centos.org?
Can we use something more user friendly than mantis? Pagure is a much better choice for an issue tracker. It's already used by the Fedora Council [0], Fedora Engineering Steering Committee [1], and the EPEL Steering Committee [2] for this purpose. I think it would serve the CentOS Board well.
[0]: https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets [1]: https://pagure.io/fesco [2]: https://pagure.io/epel
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:02 PM Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
On 5/6/20 1:07 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/05/2020 18:05, Jim Perrin wrote:
I'm inclined to prefer a ticketing system, honestly. That way the things that are open or to-be-done are easily viewable and up-front. We can mark issues done, closed, whatever, and people can interact in a way that's visible without hunting through a variety of threads for a decision. It also means (in the specific instance of web work) we can review, comment, and mark up code done and contributed either as pull requests, linked items, etc.
that works too,
So what's the next step here? Should we ask CPE to stand something up? Can we create a new 'Project' on bugs.centos.org?
-- Rich Bowen - rbowen@redhat.com @CentOSProject // @rbowen 859 351 9166
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Fri, May 8, 2020, 19:02 Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
On 5/6/20 1:07 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/05/2020 18:05, Jim Perrin wrote:
I'm inclined to prefer a ticketing system, honestly. That way the things that are open or to-be-done are easily viewable and up-front. We can mark issues done, closed, whatever, and people can interact in a way that's visible without hunting through a variety of threads for a decision. It also means (in the specific instance of web work) we can review, comment, and mark up code done and contributed either as pull requests, linked items, etc.
that works too,
So what's the next step here? Should we ask CPE to stand something up?
CPE already provide a Taiga instance (teams.fedoraproject.org) and Pagure.io which can happily accommodate any number of ticketing system boards that might be required. Red Hat also has a public facing Jira instance (issues.redhat.com) which hosts 100s of Open Source projects and a project could be applied for there. CPE will be moving to that public facing instance later this year for what it is worth. Right now we track a lot of our work on an internal instance which is being migrated. It could allow for additional collaboration and info exchange between CPE and the Board. CentOS Stream interactions with RHEL development teams will also be driven through that JIRA instance.
Let me know how we can best help here.
Can we create a new 'Project' on bugs.centos.org?
You could for sure but the benefit of trackers like Taiga or Pagure or JIRA is the graphical power and dashboard views they can bring. It gives a flat ticket view much more life and value for drive by interest.
-- Rich Bowen - rbowen@redhat.com @CentOSProject // @rbowen 859 351 9166
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hi all,
Great to see the convo flowing here to address some frustrations and challenges. I'm happy to help facilitate discussions/feedback around how we can make some improvements here (if required).
On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 12:55, Leigh Griffin lgriffin@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2020, 19:02 Rich Bowen rbowen@redhat.com wrote:
On 5/6/20 1:07 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/05/2020 18:05, Jim Perrin wrote:
I'm inclined to prefer a ticketing system, honestly. That way the
things
that are open or to-be-done are easily viewable and up-front. We can mark issues done, closed, whatever, and people can interact in a way that's visible without hunting through a variety of threads for a decision. It also means (in the specific instance of web work) we can review, comment, and mark up code done and contributed either as pull requests, linked items, etc.
that works too,
So what's the next step here? Should we ask CPE to stand something up?
CPE already provide a Taiga instance (teams.fedoraproject.org) and Pagure.io which can happily accommodate any number of ticketing system boards that might be required. Red Hat also has a public facing Jira instance (issues.redhat.com) which hosts 100s of Open Source projects and a project could be applied for there. CPE will be moving to that public facing instance later this year for what it is worth. Right now we track a lot of our work on an internal instance which is being migrated. It could allow for additional collaboration and info exchange between CPE and the Board. CentOS Stream interactions with RHEL development teams will also be driven through that JIRA instance.
Let me know how we can best help here.
Can we create a new 'Project' on bugs.centos.org? http://bugs.centos.org
?
You could for sure but the benefit of trackers like Taiga or Pagure or JIRA is the graphical power and dashboard views they can bring. It gives a flat ticket view much more life and value for drive by interest.
-- Rich Bowen - rbowen@redhat.com @CentOSProject // @rbowen 859 351 9166
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 1:05 PM Jim Perrin jperrin@centos.org wrote:
I'm inclined to prefer a ticketing system, honestly. That way the things that are open or to-be-done are easily viewable and up-front. We can mark issues done, closed, whatever, and people can interact in a way that's visible without hunting through a variety of threads for a decision. It also means (in the specific instance of web work) we can review, comment, and mark up code done and contributed either as pull requests, linked items, etc.
CNCF and a number of other projects already use such a model.
The Fedora Council and other major organizational groups in Fedora also do this as pagure.io projects.
I would suggest that the CentOS Board does the same.
On 5/6/20 1:05 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
I'm inclined to prefer a ticketing system, honestly. That way the things that are open or to-be-done are easily viewable and up-front. We can mark issues done, closed, whatever, and people can interact in a way that's visible without hunting through a variety of threads for a decision. It also means (in the specific instance of web work) we can review, comment, and mark up code done and contributed either as pull requests, linked items, etc.
That would be awesome.
CNCF and a number of other projects already use such a model.
On 5/6/20 9:59 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/05/2020 17:01, Rich Bowen wrote:
Sure. I get that. What I'm asking, though, is how we, the community, should engage with you, the board, and how we can know that issues raised are even on your list to be addressed, some day, and when some day might be.
I am happy to try an email list. The board meets monthly, for things that dont need a sync, we should be able to make progress faster.
regards,
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On 5/6/20 6:31 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
I must lead with this: It is with great trepidation that I even write this message, because I have no desire to burn bridges. I currently enjoy a cordial working relationship with everyone on the board, and, without exception, have great respect for each of them personally. But it is my job to point out that the board's method of engaging with the community isn't working.
Thanks all for bringing this discussion along, we seem to have arrived at "yes and what tool." :) In parallel we need to have some idea of the personas of the people using this tool.
For some more context about Rich's email:
I asked Rich to start this thread when he asked me this question. I said then and here, it's true we do not have clear processes for getting things heard and approved/denied by the Board.
As a Director and as the current Board Secretary, I am highly interested and somewhat desperate to solve those problems -- my task list for the Board and the Project is a bit unruly and dependent on other humans to move things along. The practice of open source software projects reminds us that I shouldn't be solving that problem in isolation, without transparency and the collaboration that comes with it.
So let's work on it together. Let's figure out a reasonable process that will work right now, and iterate on it as needed over time.
There are a number of people who care about CentOS as a project, let's call them "project stakeholders". They all wish to engage with the project leadership for guidance and approval around various efforts.
Can we use this thread to define those stakeholder personas, what kinds of things/ways they need to engage with the Board, and how we can make that happen?`
I have a feeling there are some folks here experienced with helping define functional requirements and user personas, you are hereby invited to help this discussion move forward.
Best regards,
- Karsten -- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io https://theopensourceway.org | https://github.com/theopensourceway/guide
On Tue, May 12, 2020, 23:54 Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
On 5/6/20 6:31 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
I must lead with this: It is with great trepidation that I even write this message, because I have no desire to burn bridges. I currently enjoy a cordial working relationship with everyone on the board, and, without exception, have great respect for each of them personally. But it is my job to point out that the board's method of engaging with the community isn't working.
Thanks all for bringing this discussion along, we seem to have arrived at "yes and what tool." :) In parallel we need to have some idea of the personas of the people using this tool.
For some more context about Rich's email:
I asked Rich to start this thread when he asked me this question. I said then and here, it's true we do not have clear processes for getting things heard and approved/denied by the Board.
As a Director and as the current Board Secretary, I am highly interested and somewhat desperate to solve those problems -- my task list for the Board and the Project is a bit unruly and dependent on other humans to move things along. The practice of open source software projects reminds us that I shouldn't be solving that problem in isolation, without transparency and the collaboration that comes with it.
So let's work on it together. Let's figure out a reasonable process that will work right now, and iterate on it as needed over time.
There are a number of people who care about CentOS as a project, let's call them "project stakeholders". They all wish to engage with the project leadership for guidance and approval around various efforts.
Can we use this thread to define those stakeholder personas, what kinds of things/ways they need to engage with the Board, and how we can make that happen?`
The CPE team is one such persona who need to engage with the Board for key decisions and info sharing on technical projects we are undertaking that might impact CentOS as a whole. We also want a 2 way conversation on requirements and needs that the Board, on behalf of the Community, may wish for us to undertake e.g. service creation/ modification. Actions here might impact the Community from a technical or user interaction perspective so a public tracker is key to allow transparency into the conversations.
I have a feeling there are some folks here experienced with helping define functional requirements and user personas, you are hereby invited to help this discussion move forward.
My entire professional background is in this area, I'm happy to help where my time will allow. I'm also happy to offer the services of our Product Owner Aoife Moloney to help capture this who also works in this manner day in day out.
Best regards,
- Karsten
-- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io https://theopensourceway.org | https://github.com/theopensourceway/guide
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 7:34 AM Leigh Griffin lgriffin@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020, 23:54 Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
On 5/6/20 6:31 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
I must lead with this: It is with great trepidation that I even write this message, because I have no desire to burn bridges. I currently enjoy a cordial working relationship with everyone on the board, and, without exception, have great respect for each of them personally. But it is my job to point out that the board's method of engaging with the community isn't working.
Thanks all for bringing this discussion along, we seem to have arrived at "yes and what tool." :) In parallel we need to have some idea of the personas of the people using this tool.
For some more context about Rich's email:
I asked Rich to start this thread when he asked me this question. I said then and here, it's true we do not have clear processes for getting things heard and approved/denied by the Board.
As a Director and as the current Board Secretary, I am highly interested and somewhat desperate to solve those problems -- my task list for the Board and the Project is a bit unruly and dependent on other humans to move things along. The practice of open source software projects reminds us that I shouldn't be solving that problem in isolation, without transparency and the collaboration that comes with it.
So let's work on it together. Let's figure out a reasonable process that will work right now, and iterate on it as needed over time.
There are a number of people who care about CentOS as a project, let's call them "project stakeholders". They all wish to engage with the project leadership for guidance and approval around various efforts.
Can we use this thread to define those stakeholder personas, what kinds of things/ways they need to engage with the Board, and how we can make that happen?`
The CPE team is one such persona who need to engage with the Board for key decisions and info sharing on technical projects we are undertaking that might impact CentOS as a whole. We also want a 2 way conversation on requirements and needs that the Board, on behalf of the Community, may wish for us to undertake e.g. service creation/ modification. Actions here might impact the Community from a technical or user interaction perspective so a public tracker is key to allow transparency into the conversations.
I have a feeling there are some folks here experienced with helping define functional requirements and user personas, you are hereby invited to help this discussion move forward.
My entire professional background is in this area, I'm happy to help where my time will allow. I'm also happy to offer the services of our Product Owner Aoife Moloney to help capture this who also works in this manner day in day out.
+1, I'm more than happy to work out how best to engage with the CentOS Board from the CPE team side, with the board :) And any tooling/methods we identify as having potential success can also be scaled to allow for the wider project stakeholder groups to engage in this manner also & happy to use this thread as suggested for working this out with everyone collectively.
From the CPE side, we are a stakeholder to the CentOS Project and are happy
to file requests/issues through a public tracker as mentioned above. If you opt to track through issues.redhat.com, or pagure.io, creating labels to identify types of tickets will help the review process if the board only meets monthly. You could honestly have labels for anything - hardware request, travel, new feature approval, etc. Continue to use the devel list for open discussion and feedback and by adding the link to your issue tracker in your email signature, there will be easy and quick access for people to file their request directly from conversational engagement on the email thread to a formal trackable request to the board to action.
I have ideas and am happy to help here, it benefits us all to have this clarity. So lets decide what tool first - does the board have a preference? You will be the ones using it! :)
Best regards,
- Karsten
-- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io https://theopensourceway.org | https://github.com/theopensourceway/guide
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Circling back on this, our Board discussion last week was fruitful toward solving this.
We'd like to use git.centos.org as an issue tracker for interacting with the Board and for tracking our various efforts. We're moving from largely manual processes, which we've been creating since the addition of CentOS Stream made it necessary to re-consider CentOS as a contributor project in need of active, visible leaders.
What is the next step? I'm ready to build out the repo, figure out what different personas need, and so on.
Best,
- Karsten
On 5/13/20 2:43 AM, Aoife Moloney wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 7:34 AM Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@redhat.com mailto:lgriffin@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020, 23:54 Karsten Wade <kwade@redhat.com <mailto:kwade@redhat.com>> wrote: On 5/6/20 6:31 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > I must lead with this: It is with great trepidation that I even write > this message, because I have no desire to burn bridges. I currently > enjoy a cordial working relationship with everyone on the board, and, > without exception, have great respect for each of them personally. But > it is my job to point out that the board's method of engaging with the > community isn't working. Thanks all for bringing this discussion along, we seem to have arrived at "yes and what tool." :) In parallel we need to have some idea of the personas of the people using this tool. For some more context about Rich's email: I asked Rich to start this thread when he asked me this question. I said then and here, it's true we do not have clear processes for getting things heard and approved/denied by the Board. As a Director and as the current Board Secretary, I am highly interested and somewhat desperate to solve those problems -- my task list for the Board and the Project is a bit unruly and dependent on other humans to move things along. The practice of open source software projects reminds us that I shouldn't be solving that problem in isolation, without transparency and the collaboration that comes with it. So let's work on it together. Let's figure out a reasonable process that will work right now, and iterate on it as needed over time. There are a number of people who care about CentOS as a project, let's call them "project stakeholders". They all wish to engage with the project leadership for guidance and approval around various efforts. Can we use this thread to define those stakeholder personas, what kinds of things/ways they need to engage with the Board, and how we can make that happen?` The CPE team is one such persona who need to engage with the Board for key decisions and info sharing on technical projects we are undertaking that might impact CentOS as a whole. We also want a 2 way conversation on requirements and needs that the Board, on behalf of the Community, may wish for us to undertake e.g. service creation/ modification. Actions here might impact the Community from a technical or user interaction perspective so a public tracker is key to allow transparency into the conversations. I have a feeling there are some folks here experienced with helping define functional requirements and user personas, you are hereby invited to help this discussion move forward. My entire professional background is in this area, I'm happy to help where my time will allow. I'm also happy to offer the services of our Product Owner Aoife Moloney to help capture this who also works in this manner day in day out.
+1, I'm more than happy to work out how best to engage with the CentOS Board from the CPE team side, with the board :) And any tooling/methods we identify as having potential success can also be scaled to allow for the wider project stakeholder groups to engage in this manner also & happy to use this thread as suggested for working this out with everyone collectively.
From the CPE side, we are a stakeholder to the CentOS Project and are happy to file requests/issues through a public tracker as mentioned above. If you opt to track through issues.redhat.com http://issues.redhat.com, or pagure.io http://pagure.io, creating labels to identify types of tickets will help the review process if the board only meets monthly. You could honestly have labels for anything - hardware request, travel, new feature approval, etc. Continue to use the devel list for open discussion and feedback and by adding the link to your issue tracker in your email signature, there will be easy and quick access for people to file their request directly from conversational engagement on the email thread to a formal trackable request to the board to action.
I have ideas and am happy to help here, it benefits us all to have this clarity. So lets decide what tool first - does the board have a preference? You will be the ones using it! :)
Best regards, - Karsten -- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io https://theopensourceway.org | https://github.com/theopensourceway/guide _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
--
Aoife Moloney
Product Owner
Community Platform Engineering Team
Red Hat EMEA https://www.redhat.com
Communications House
Cork Road
Waterford mailto:Waterford
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
The next step would be to create the repo. Would the location https://git.centos.org/centos/board be acceptable?
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 2:03 AM Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
Circling back on this, our Board discussion last week was fruitful toward solving this.
We'd like to use git.centos.org as an issue tracker for interacting with the Board and for tracking our various efforts. We're moving from largely manual processes, which we've been creating since the addition of CentOS Stream made it necessary to re-consider CentOS as a contributor project in need of active, visible leaders.
What is the next step? I'm ready to build out the repo, figure out what different personas need, and so on.
Best,
- Karsten
On 5/13/20 2:43 AM, Aoife Moloney wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 7:34 AM Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@redhat.com mailto:lgriffin@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020, 23:54 Karsten Wade <kwade@redhat.com <mailto:kwade@redhat.com>> wrote: On 5/6/20 6:31 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > I must lead with this: It is with great trepidation that I even write > this message, because I have no desire to burn bridges. I currently > enjoy a cordial working relationship with everyone on the board, and, > without exception, have great respect for each of them personally. But > it is my job to point out that the board's method of engaging with the > community isn't working. Thanks all for bringing this discussion along, we seem to have arrived at "yes and what tool." :) In parallel we need to have some idea of the personas of the people using this tool. For some more context about Rich's email: I asked Rich to start this thread when he asked me this question. I said then and here, it's true we do not have clear processes for getting things heard and approved/denied by the Board. As a Director and as the current Board Secretary, I am highly interested and somewhat desperate to solve those problems -- my task list for the Board and the Project is a bit unruly and dependent on other humans to move things along. The practice of open source software projects reminds us that I shouldn't be solving that problem in isolation, without transparency and the collaboration that comes with it. So let's work on it together. Let's figure out a reasonable process that will work right now, and iterate on it as needed over time. There are a number of people who care about CentOS as a project, let's call them "project stakeholders". They all wish to engage with the project leadership for guidance and approval around various efforts. Can we use this thread to define those stakeholder personas, what kinds of things/ways they need to engage with the Board, and how we can make that happen?` The CPE team is one such persona who need to engage with the Board for key decisions and info sharing on technical projects we are undertaking that might impact CentOS as a whole. We also want a 2 way conversation on requirements and needs that the Board, on behalf of the Community, may wish for us to undertake e.g. service creation/ modification. Actions here might impact the Community from a technical or user interaction perspective so a public tracker is key to allow transparency into the conversations. I have a feeling there are some folks here experienced with helping define functional requirements and user personas, you are hereby invited to help this discussion move forward. My entire professional background is in this area, I'm happy to help where my time will allow. I'm also happy to offer the services of our Product Owner Aoife Moloney to help capture this who also works in this manner day in day out.
+1, I'm more than happy to work out how best to engage with the CentOS Board from the CPE team side, with the board :) And any tooling/methods we identify as having potential success can also be scaled to allow for the wider project stakeholder groups to engage in this manner also & happy to use this thread as suggested for working this out with everyone collectively.
From the CPE side, we are a stakeholder to the CentOS Project and are happy to file requests/issues through a public tracker as mentioned above. If you opt to track through issues.redhat.com http://issues.redhat.com, or pagure.io http://pagure.io, creating labels to identify types of tickets will help the review process if the board only meets monthly. You could honestly have labels for anything - hardware request, travel, new feature approval, etc. Continue to use the devel list for open discussion and feedback and by adding the link to your issue tracker in your email signature, there will be easy and quick access for people to file their request directly from conversational engagement on the email thread to a formal trackable request to the board to action.
I have ideas and am happy to help here, it benefits us all to have this clarity. So lets decide what tool first - does the board have a preference? You will be the ones using it! :)
Best regards, - Karsten -- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io https://theopensourceway.org | https://github.com/theopensourceway/guide _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
--
Aoife Moloney
Product Owner
Community Platform Engineering Team
Red Hat EMEA https://www.redhat.com
Communications House
Cork Road
Waterford mailto:Waterford
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io https://theopensourceway.org | https://github.com/theopensourceway/guide
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 8:03 AM Karsten Wade kwade@redhat.com wrote:
Circling back on this, our Board discussion last week was fruitful toward solving this.
We'd like to use git.centos.org as an issue tracker for interacting with the Board and for tracking our various efforts. We're moving from largely manual processes, which we've been creating since the addition of CentOS Stream made it necessary to re-consider CentOS as a contributor project in need of active, visible leaders.
What is the next step? I'm ready to build out the repo, figure out what different personas need, and so on.
Is the intention here we just log an issue and it becomes a conversation topic? That's my interpretation of this, if that's the case, we just need the actual repo created and it works organically from there.
Best,
- Karsten
On 5/13/20 2:43 AM, Aoife Moloney wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 7:34 AM Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@redhat.com mailto:lgriffin@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2020, 23:54 Karsten Wade <kwade@redhat.com <mailto:kwade@redhat.com>> wrote: On 5/6/20 6:31 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > I must lead with this: It is with great trepidation that I even write > this message, because I have no desire to burn bridges. I currently > enjoy a cordial working relationship with everyone on the board, and, > without exception, have great respect for each of them personally. But > it is my job to point out that the board's method of engaging with the > community isn't working. Thanks all for bringing this discussion along, we seem to have arrived at "yes and what tool." :) In parallel we need to have some idea of the personas of the people using this tool. For some more context about Rich's email: I asked Rich to start this thread when he asked me this question. I said then and here, it's true we do not have clear processes for
getting
things heard and approved/denied by the Board. As a Director and as the current Board Secretary, I am highly interested and somewhat desperate to solve those problems -- my task list for the Board and the Project is a bit unruly and dependent on other humans to move things along. The practice of open source software projects reminds us that I shouldn't be solving that problem in isolation, without transparency and the collaboration that comes with it. So let's work on it together. Let's figure out a reasonable process that will work right now, and iterate on it as needed over time. There are a number of people who care about CentOS as a project, let's call them "project stakeholders". They all wish to engage with
the
project leadership for guidance and approval around various
efforts.
Can we use this thread to define those stakeholder personas, what kinds of things/ways they need to engage with the Board, and how we can make that happen?` The CPE team is one such persona who need to engage with the Board for key decisions and info sharing on technical projects we are undertaking that might impact CentOS as a whole. We also want a 2 way conversation on requirements and needs that the Board, on behalf of the Community, may wish for us to undertake e.g. service creation/ modification. Actions here might impact the Community from a technical or user interaction perspective so a public tracker is key to allow transparency into the conversations. I have a feeling there are some folks here experienced with
helping
define functional requirements and user personas, you are hereby invited to help this discussion move forward. My entire professional background is in this area, I'm happy to help where my time will allow. I'm also happy to offer the services of our Product Owner Aoife Moloney to help capture this who also works in this manner day in day out.
+1, I'm more than happy to work out how best to engage with the CentOS Board from the CPE team side, with the board :) And any tooling/methods we identify as having potential success can also be scaled to allow for the wider project stakeholder groups to engage in this manner also & happy to use this thread as suggested for working this out with everyone collectively.
From the CPE side, we are a stakeholder to the CentOS Project and are happy to file requests/issues through a public tracker as mentioned above. If you opt to track through issues.redhat.com http://issues.redhat.com, or pagure.io http://pagure.io, creating labels to identify types of tickets will help the review process if the board only meets monthly. You could honestly have labels for anything - hardware request, travel, new feature approval, etc. Continue to use the devel list for open discussion and feedback and by adding the link to your issue tracker in your email signature, there will be easy and quick access for people to file their request directly from conversational engagement on the email thread to a formal trackable request to the board to action.
I have ideas and am happy to help here, it benefits us all to have this clarity. So lets decide what tool first - does the board have a preference? You will be the ones using it! :)
Best regards, - Karsten -- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io https://theopensourceway.org | https://github.com/theopensourceway/guide _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
--
Aoife Moloney
Product Owner
Community Platform Engineering Team
Red Hat EMEA https://www.redhat.com
Communications House
Cork Road
Waterford mailto:Waterford
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://osci.io https://theopensourceway.org | https://github.com/theopensourceway/guide
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
After a chat with Karsten the repo is ok to live here: 'https://git.centos.org/centos/board'