Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On 04/04/2012 02:59 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: Actually not just American tax law. European tax law (both EU and national/provincial/etc), International trademark law (again US, EU, and local ones), and various other corporation and non profit laws. Basically you have to spend more time dealing with teams of lawyers than you do coding.. So you guys are trying to claim that taxes are what prevents the community from contributing and for the project to accept those contributions? I for one would think the project could be categorized as not for profit organization. It may not be one today which simply begs the question what's preventing us becoming one tomorrow... In any case there are ways to work around Red Hat and taxes should the community be forced to do so... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: I for one would think the project could be categorized as not for profit organization. I'm not an attorney, and don't play one on the Internet, and I don't pretend to have a completely understanding of all the nuances and details, but I'll share a few things I learned during my time as the FPL. Please don't consider this as either authoritative or as legal advice -- this is just one guy's ramblings on a subject that he's passionate about. First of all, let me speak to the motivation. I think there are many people (including community members and Red Hat employees) that can see some advantages of having a non-profit organization of some flavor for the Fedora Projects. My understanding is that Red Hat even put a lot of time and effort into investigating that path in the early Fedora days. Now, for the ugly part. One of the many complications is that if a US non-profit receives the majority of its funding and support from a single corporate entity, that the non-profit begins to look like a tax shelter, and at least under US law, that causes more headaches than it is worth. I'm sure there are other complications as well, but that's the most obvious one to me. I, for one, would *love* to find a way for Fedora to be able to accept funds from outside groups. I'm not complaining about Red Hat here -- I think they've been a great corporate sponsor of the Fedora Project, and I don't personally see the need for the Fedora Project to distance itself from them. They continue to put a lot of resources (money, salaried positions, legal support -- and most importantly -- trust) in Fedora, and I'd never suggest doing anything that might jeopardize that. I would like other organizations to be able to donate money to Fedora too, and in an ideal world we could sell Fedora-branded items and have a portion of the proceeds directly benefit the project. I investigated and pushed for the ability to make this happen while I was FPL, but the stark reality is that there's no feasible way to do this at the present time. The easiest way for outside organizations to help Fedora is to directly provide support at FUDCons (such as directly paying for the catering or the internet access), or donating hardware to the Infrastructure team (and there are certain guidelines that the Infra team can share with you, if you're interested). It's not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the situation we live in right now. -- Jared Smith -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On 04/04/2012 09:31 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote: Now, for the ugly part. One of the many complications is that if a US non-profit receives the majority of its funding and support from a single corporate entity, that the non-profit begins to look like a tax shelter, and at least under US law, that causes more headaches than it is worth. I'm sure there are other complications as well, but that's the most obvious one to me. I, for one, would *love* to find a way for Fedora to be able to accept funds from outside groups. Could you clarify whether the problem is that there is no way to donate at all, or that the donors cannot write the donations off their taxes? I seem to remember that public institutions (for instance, the government) are in general barred from accepting gifts; however, Fedora Foundation and even RedHat are simply regular legal entities, so I'd think that a random member of the public could donate to them, just like they could gift another person. It's just that the gift would not be tax-deductible. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On 4 April 2012 07:31, Jared K. Smith jsm...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:23 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: Now, for the ugly part. One of the many complications is that if a US non-profit receives the majority of its funding and support from a single corporate entity, that the non-profit begins to look like a tax shelter, and at least under US law, that causes more headaches than it is worth. I'm sure there are other complications as well, but that's the most obvious one to me. It is not just US law. Most countries have similar rules in place for non-profits due a long history of them being used as fronts for governments and corporations for tax-dodging, espionage, bribery, and other shenanigans. In this case the US laws matter because Red Hat is based in the US.. but the same issues would come up in the EU or similar places. -- Stephen J Smoogen. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance. Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me. —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On 04/04/2012 03:31 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote: I, for one, would *love* to find a way for Fedora to be able to accept funds from outside groups. I'm not complaining about Red Hat here -- I think they've been a great corporate sponsor of the Fedora Project, and I don't personally see the need for the Fedora Project to distance itself from them. They continue to put a lot of resources (money, salaried positions, legal support -- and most importantly -- trust) in Fedora, and I'd never suggest doing anything that might jeopardize that. I would like other organizations to be able to donate money to Fedora too, and in an ideal world we could sell Fedora-branded items and have a portion of the proceeds directly benefit the project. I investigated and pushed for the ability to make this happen while I was FPL, but the stark reality is that there's no feasible way to do this at the present time. The easiest way for outside organizations to help Fedora is to directly provide support at FUDCons (such as directly paying for the catering or the internet access), or donating hardware to the Infrastructure team (and there are certain guidelines that the Infra team can share with you, if you're interested). It's not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination, but it's the situation we live in right now. -- Jared Smith Does that mean the only cold hard cash Fedora receives is from Redhat? Ie. all travel allownaces etc cmoe from that support? I was recently asked in an interview what funds we (the current Fedora project I'm working on) was looking for. And all I could say was peoples time and knowledge :( -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com wrote: Does that mean the only cold hard cash Fedora receives is from Redhat? Ie. all travel allownaces etc cmoe from that support? Yes. We've had other companies help sponsor FUDCon events (thank you!) and donate equipment, bandwidth, etc., but to use your terminology, the only cold hard cash that Fedora receives is from Red Hat. All the travel subsidies, swag production, media production, release parties, and so forth come from the budget we get from Red Hat. -- Jared Smith -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
Ok, giving money won't work, and the tax stuff is a mess. Let's ignore that for a second. What about equipment? Consider: if a box showed up at PHX, which contained hardware that met the technology requirements of PHX, with a note that said here, yours, no strings attached - what would happen? Would it be returned, or used? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: On 4/4/12 11:28 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: Ok, giving money won't work, and the tax stuff is a mess. Let's ignore that for a second. What about equipment? Consider: if a box showed up at PHX, which contained hardware that met the technology requirements of PHX, with a note that said here, yours, no strings attached - what would happen? Would it be returned, or used? Used. There is a process for donating hardware in place, and it's been used before. To be clear, it would be used but ownership still resides with whomever purchased the hardware. At least as far as I know. So really, it's more akin to PHX hosting your hardware for use than it is an outright donation. Think of it as an indefinite loan, where you don't pay for colo space/power. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
To be clear, it would be used but ownership still resides with whomever purchased the hardware. Really? You can't donate hardware, you can only let Fedora borrow it? If you sponsor catering at a con, do you need to get the food back at some point too? Sounds like a silly distinction. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
Used. There is a process for donating hardware in place, and it's been used before. Ok, so it sounds like there's a method in place for entities-with-cash to use that cash to benefit Fedora, as long as they are OK with not getting the tax break and they're willing to go through a little effort. So between sponsoring cons, travel, hardware, etc... what can *only* be done with Red Hat Cash? Is there anything that an individual cannot say I'll pay for that (and/or buy that) for you ? /me wonders if this sponsor-donate path needs more coordination and publishing, maybe a shopping list approach. Let donors choose one or more items for a list-of-things-we'd-otherwise-need-cash-for and just buy them (hardware) and/or pay for them (travel etc). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
Hardware is likely classified in tax code as an asset, where as food at a conference is not. Well, it's an asset until you eat it :-) Ok, that explains things. Legal technicality, but still a workable process. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On 4 April 2012 12:28, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: Ok, giving money won't work, and the tax stuff is a mess. Let's ignore that for a second. What about equipment? Consider: if a box showed up at PHX, which contained hardware that met the technology requirements of PHX, with a note that said here, yours, no strings attached - what would happen? Would it be returned, or used? In the past it was used. Currently we would probably send it back unless a set of parameters were met: 1) We didn't own it. [Welcome to most nations tax laws.. computer equipment are assets and taxable. Items at a conference are not.. ] If we own it, we have a way to buy it for some amount and deal with the taxes on its real versus declared value. 2) The owners have a warranty on the system and a way for us to return it to them when it is done. The warranty is because a lot of that equipment we used to get donated to us did not have any and we ended up paying more to fix them than we would have if Red Hat had bought them. Now we do have a lot of systems that are colocated and their hardware is donated to us from various peering companies. We also have rules in place on what we will accept here.. mainly because we were getting a lot of 256MB Pentium II boxes being given for our use which were not useful for our needs. We are very thankful to those facilities which have been able to deal with our needs (internetx, bodhost, peer1, telia, and I have forgotten one or two others) -- Stephen J Smoogen. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance. Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me. —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:29:06 -0700 Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: On 4/4/12 11:28 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: Ok, giving money won't work, and the tax stuff is a mess. Let's ignore that for a second. What about equipment? Consider: if a box showed up at PHX, which contained hardware that met the technology requirements of PHX, with a note that said here, yours, no strings attached - what would happen? Would it be returned, or used? Used. There is a process for donating hardware in place, and it's been used before. Just to add/clarify here: Please don't send random stuff to us without checking first. ;) At a minimum: - There must be some tangible benefit to Fedora from the hardware. (no, we don't want to host your personal fileserver) - The hardware MUST be rack mountable/enterprise quality. - The hardware MUST have a warentee from a major vendor with 24x7 response time. (No joe's discount computers or 9 to 5 when we get to it, etc). Your best bet if you want to send us something is to open a Infrastructure ticket or post to the Infrastructure list or mail ad...@fedoraproject.org and we can discuss things. Further note that we also accept co-location/server donations in other sites (in particular places we don't have good coverage already). I'd like to also thank our existing sponsors: http://fedoraproject.org/sponsors.html kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On 04/04/2012 05:14 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: It is not just US law. Most countries have similar rules in place for non-profits due a long history of them being used as fronts for governments and corporations for tax-dodging, espionage, bribery, and other shenanigans. In this case the US laws matter because Red Hat is based in the US.. but the same issues would come up in the EU or similar places. Somehow other distribution have manage to make this work so perhaps we need to hear from debian,gentoo etc people what process they have used and how it has turned out to them? Perhaps we need to separate all ( legal? ) connections to Red Hat ( Red Hat would then just donate via the same method than anyone else ) to make this work or directly donate money/hw/stuff directly to each individual SIG's representatives or perhaps to ambassadors? JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:40 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: So between sponsoring cons, travel, hardware, etc... what can *only* be done with Red Hat Cash? Is there anything that an individual cannot say I'll pay for that (and/or buy that) for you ? Absolutely. An individual or organization can say We'll pay for Joe's travel or We'll pay for lunch on Saturday or We'll pay for the internet connection or a myriad of other things like that. They just need to pay for those things directly -- they can't just hand Fedora a pile of cash. /me wonders if this sponsor-donate path needs more coordination and publishing, maybe a shopping list approach. Let donors choose one or more items for a list-of-things-we'd-otherwise-need-cash-for and just buy them (hardware) and/or pay for them (travel etc). We've put together a prospectus for a couple of the FUDCon events to do that very thing. Feel free to help us amplify that and make it easier to find. -- Jared Smith -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps we need to separate all ( legal? ) connections to Red Hat ( Red Hat would then just donate via the same method than anyone else ) to make this work or directly donate money/hw/stuff directly to each individual SIG's representatives or perhaps to ambassadors? For what benefit? Again, if Red Hat is still providing the majority of the funding and resources for Fedora, we still end up looking like a tax shelter. If Red Hat isn't providing the majority of the funding for Fedora, then unless a miracle happens and we get a *metric ton* of other funding, we'd end up with less resources than we have now. (And that's just speaking of the budget that Red Hat gives to Fedora, not to mention the salaries for the FPL, members of the infrastructure team, the colocation facilities, the legal support and defense, the public relations help, and so on.) Le me put it much more bluntly: I think the relationship with Red Hat is very beneficial to Fedora, and Fedora is beneficial to Red Hat, and trying to put significant distance between the two is going to cause more problems than it's worth. Again, in an ideal world, we'd be able to do more than we can now -- but there just happens to be a big gap between theory and reality that we can't easily ignore. -- Jared Smith -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On 04/04/2012 09:45 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:40 PM, DJ Deloried...@redhat.com wrote: So between sponsoring cons, travel, hardware, etc... what can *only* be done with Red Hat Cash? Is there anything that an individual cannot say I'll pay for that (and/or buy that) for you ? Absolutely. An individual or organization can say We'll pay for Joe's travel or We'll pay for lunch on Saturday or We'll pay for the internet connection or a myriad of other things like that. They just need to pay for those things directly -- they can't just hand Fedora a pile of cash. Does Fedora exist outside of the US (on the books)? Surely there must be a way to dissociate Redhat US sponsorship to an international non-profit that represents Fedora? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/04/2012 09:45 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:40 PM, DJ Deloried...@redhat.com wrote: So between sponsoring cons, travel, hardware, etc... what can *only* be done with Red Hat Cash? Is there anything that an individual cannot say I'll pay for that (and/or buy that) for you ? Absolutely. An individual or organization can say We'll pay for Joe's travel or We'll pay for lunch on Saturday or We'll pay for the internet connection or a myriad of other things like that. They just need to pay for those things directly -- they can't just hand Fedora a pile of cash. Does Fedora exist outside of the US (on the books)? Surely there must be a way to dissociate Redhat US sponsorship to an international non-profit that represents Fedora? I believe there were efforts to create a Fedora Foundation in the European Union a while ago. Those efforts failed. I honestly don't remember why, but it wasn't because people just weren't interested. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com wrote: Does Fedora exist outside of the US (on the books)? Surely there must be a way to dissociate Redhat US sponsorship to an international non-profit that represents Fedora? Been there, tried that... still have the scars. I'm happy to share details if people really want to go down this road, but we're pretty far off-topic at this point. I think it's sufficient to say that if there was a simple answer to this situation, we would have tried it already. -- Jared Smith -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:13:51 -0400 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:58:11 -0700 Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/03/2012 09:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: From a koji perspective, there really isn't much benefit to step 2. What needs to happen is the RPMs from the secondary hub need to be copied to the primary in the correct NVR directories in the hub's storage. That can happen in the background for quite a bit, but at some point the hub would need to be taken offline to sync up the last few builds, and then switch the builders over. Having a staging hub just means you have to copy and move the builders twice. This is mostly due to how koji builders can only talk to one hub at a time and one hub only. Where do you envision the builders being in this scenario? I see the steps being something like this: 1. SA builders and/or hub are located outside PHX. 2 option a. Builders come up in PHX, hub stays in original location. 2 option b. Staging hub comes up in PHX, builders stay in original location. 3. Both staging hub and builders come up in PHX 4. When appropriate move from staging hub to primary hub. As i see it the Secondary arch will continue to run as normal. we will get new build hardware for use in PHX, it will be brught up and added to koji behind the scenes we will be importing the matching Who is we in this scenario. It's the responsibility of the SA team to provide hardware for builders, and I don't see promotion to PA as grounds for someone other than the SA team purchasing it. Basically, we here should not be the Fedora project. josh We would be releng importing the binaries into the primary koji. Hardware procurement would be done to infrastructure specifications. with support contracts, remote management etc. as to who buys it? I would hope that the secondary arch team could negotiate donations from vendors. since the arch would be growing and the vendors would want it to be used as a selling point. Builder hardware today is all provided by purchases by Red Hat, the last builder hardware was purchased by Red Hat IT and the koji storage was a mixture of Release Engineering and Red Hat IT. I really don't care who pays for the hardware, just that we have hardware that meets the requirements for being in the colo. ongoing hardware costs will likely be from one of Fedora engineering, Release engineering or Red Hat IT's budget. Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk97T6UACgkQkSxm47BaWffFXwCfVrrnAG9tt6KAif/9cv3VtDys aZQAn1CyzOVjqiPr/Kd46rVPtZXecEW6 =/1J2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
2012/4/3 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com: On 04/03/2012 07:29 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: I really don't care who pays for the hardware, just that we have hardware that meets the requirements for being in the colo. ongoing hardware costs will likely be from one of Fedora engineering, Release engineering or Red Hat IT's budget. Just out of curiosity what's the procedure for the community to provide releng/infrastructure with hw if it's needed? Does there exist an paypal account or something similar to gather funds for needed hw? Long story put short what can we do and what cant we do in that regard? I believe it depends, in the case of ARM I believe it's going to be a combination of working with vendors and possibly some budget from with in Red Hat (no idea of the department or where) based on discussions had at FUDCon. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
2012/4/3 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com: On 04/03/2012 07:29 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: I really don't care who pays for the hardware, just that we have hardware that meets the requirements for being in the colo. ongoing hardware costs will likely be from one of Fedora engineering, Release engineering or Red Hat IT's budget. Just out of curiosity what's the procedure for the community to provide releng/infrastructure with hw if it's needed? The rules are, it has to be rack mountable hardware that comes with full warranty support. I believe it needs to also have some form of remote management. If it meets those rules, you can file a ticket with infrastructure and ship it to the PHX2 datacenter. They'll let you know if there is space and power drops in the datacenter, etc. Does there exist an paypal account or something similar to gather funds for needed hw? No Fedora sponsored PayPal account. There are various reasons that one can't be created, similar to how you cannot donate financially to the Fedora Project. SA teams could possibly create one themselves I guess. Long story put short what can we do and what cant we do in that regard? The need for a full warranty is usually enough of a hurdle to limit what the community as a bunch of individuals can do. Your idea of a community started funding account is new though I think. It might be worth exploring. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
The rules are, it has to be rack mountable hardware Hmmm... how many Raspberry Pis can we fit in a rack? And at $35 each, spares would be cheaper than a warranty ;-) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: The rules are, it has to be rack mountable hardware Hmmm... how many Raspberry Pis can we fit in a rack? And at $35 each, spares would be cheaper than a warranty ;-) I don't think those were ever targetted as the ARM builder hardware that would go in PHX2. Jon mentioned enterprise class ARM servers numerous times. I was assuming that meant rack mountable. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM, DJ Delorie d...@redhat.com wrote: The rules are, it has to be rack mountable hardware Hmmm... how many Raspberry Pis can we fit in a rack? And at $35 each, spares would be cheaper than a warranty ;-) I don't think those were ever targetted as the ARM builder hardware that would go in PHX2. Jon mentioned enterprise class ARM servers numerous times. I was assuming that meant rack mountable. It's not, it was a joke (at least I think it was), they don't even support ARMv7 and aren't currently completely open so aren't an option and have never been discussed. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On 04/03/2012 09:23 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: The need for a full warranty is usually enough of a hurdle to limit what the community as a bunch of individuals can do. Your idea of a community started funding account is new though I think. It might be worth exploring. Arguably we ( as a community ) should be striving to become as independent of Red Hat as possible so it strikes me as a bit odd that we cant by some means fund the project either by donating ourselves or by getting other corporate sponsorship. I think it's inevitable that there will be conflicts of interest with Red Hat and just to give you an recent example Red Hat has stated that it is not willing to put effort or resources into a Fedora LTS distribution. Which means for example we ( as an community ) might need to fund and setup our own infrastructure to host an Fedora LTS release efforts for the project and it kinda goes with out saying that we need a way to fund such efforts. On and on it should be sufficient for the project I suppose to have an community wiki page wish list with donate link(s) for various stuff like server hw,camera's to be used to record sessions at various events for those community members that are unable to attend, even sponsor people to attend for that matter or any other ideas/stuff that might need funding. Somehow other distro's have manage to find a way to fund themselves perhaps we can adopt some of their model and implement it either officially or unofficially... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feedback on secondary architecture promotion requirements draft
On 3 April 2012 15:57, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: On 4/3/12 2:53 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Somehow other distro's have manage to find a way to fund themselves perhaps we can adopt some of their model and implement it either officially or unofficially... I suggest a long and depressing read of American tax law. Actually not just American tax law. European tax law (both EU and national/provincial/etc), International trademark law (again US, EU, and local ones), and various other corporation and non profit laws. Basically you have to spend more time dealing with teams of lawyers than you do coding.. -- Stephen J Smoogen. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance. Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me. —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
