Posted Apr 6, 2006 9:48 UTC (Thu) by bkoz
In reply to: Different Reason
Parent article: The end of the Fedora Foundation
I was surprised to re-read the Fedora announcement and see point five prioritized as well. In defense of LWN, it was prioritized in the announcement itself ("the real heart of the matter", etc.).
To me, it was the funding issue, period. It was illuminating to see just the bandwidth costs spelled out. Apparently this is a way to see some of the bandwidth usage (but not all):
This brings up the real issue, to me at least. Do hackers really want to mess with funding? Does this mean that Fedora/Red Hat hackers dress up in black ties and attend swanky events in big shiny buildings to support "donations" in the form of inflated ticket prices? That we start making brownies and selling them outside of LUG meetings? That we start hob-nobbing with big telcos and try to get them to donate funding? That before every Fedora release there is a pledge-a-thon for bandwidth?
Do we want to start tracking how many hours spent per week dealing with FC builds (as opposed to RHEL builds)? Do we want to have to expense attending LSB meetings and tracking lsb-futures as a Fedora expense? Etc. etc.
I have full confidence that the Red Hat financial people scoped out all the angles. These dudes know there stuff, in my experience...
This isn't to say that the tension between Red Hat, the patron of Fedora, and rest of the community doesn't exist. It does. However, the governance issue is a problem that can be solved, or one that can be made better, at the very least. (And one that hopefully the new Fedora Board will make a first priority.)
I don't really see the funding-related issues as solvable, in a sustained way.
It is interesting to note that other "community" distros are also funded by a generous benefactor, and do not rely on the financial support of the community. The community distros that don't have a patron, not surprisingly, have financial issues (ie OpenBSD).
to post comments)