I'm re-visiting my FAS account after several months hiatus. All the reasons I've avoided "joining" are coming back to me. How do I resolve the Todo queue: Download a client-side certificate always appearing at login? (yes, I've downloaded it, imported it, cast it in bronze...) I got to the point of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join where "You'll also need two more certs:" is followed by blank space. Going back to the beginning of the fun, the ever so tempting Join Fedora. link from fp.o does not even mention Package Maintainers or Bug Zappers, yet has pretty pics/links of seemingly every other role. And we wonder why help is lacking? The Help/Documentation tab of FAS accounts home points to the docs.fp.o - how does that help with FAS? What is documented with FAS?
jerry
-- To be named later.
Jerry Amundson wrote:
I got to the point of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join where "You'll also need two more certs:" is followed by blank space.
I just fixed this on the wiki. That text was just some leftover cruft I believe. Running fedora-packager-setup downloads the certs to which that referred.
Going back to the beginning of the fun, the ever so tempting Join Fedora. link from fp.o does not even mention Package Maintainers or Bug Zappers, yet has pretty pics/links of seemingly every other role.
Both Bug triage and Packaging are listed under OS Developer.
On 12/21/08, Todd Zullinger tmz@pobox.com wrote:
Jerry Amundson wrote:
I got to the point of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join where "You'll also need two more certs:" is followed by blank space.
I just fixed this on the wiki. That text was just some leftover cruft I believe. Running fedora-packager-setup downloads the certs to which that referred.
Looks good. Thank you!
Going back to the beginning of the fun, the ever so tempting Join Fedora. link from fp.o does not even mention Package Maintainers or Bug Zappers, yet has pretty pics/links of seemingly every other role.
Both Bug triage and Packaging are listed under OS Developer.
That's my point. With my background, OS stands for Operating System, and I wouldn't consider for one second looking there to help with, say "xeyes". (or anything else that is not kernel*, or is not in @core for that matter...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
jerry
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Jerry Amundson jamundso@gmail.com wrote:
That's my point. With my background, OS stands for Operating System, and I wouldn't consider for one second looking there to help with, say "xeyes". (or anything else that is not kernel*, or is not in @core for that matter...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
So what title would you use for the role in place of OS Developer? Is there a better succinct definition that would be appealing to you that encompasses the same skills,groups and tasks as listed here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join#OSDeveloper ?
-jef
On 12/21/08, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Jerry Amundson jamundso@gmail.com wrote:
That's my point. With my background, OS stands for Operating System, and I wouldn't consider for one second looking there to help with, say "xeyes". (or anything else that is not kernel*, or is not in @core for that matter...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
So what title would you use for the role in place of OS Developer? Is there a better succinct definition that would be appealing to you that encompasses the same skills,groups and tasks as listed here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join#OSDeveloper ?
Never mind. It's perfect. Don't change a thing.
jerry
On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 22:14 -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote:
So what title would you use for the role in place of OS Developer? Is there a better succinct definition that would be appealing to you that encompasses the same skills,groups and tasks as listed here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join#OSDeveloper ?
Never mind. It's perfect. Don't change a thing.
Please don't take that attitude. Many of us are way too close to the forest to see the trees, in fact we're in the forest. We need the opinions of those of you coming down the trail of how to describe this part of the forest. I don't believe Jef was trying to be condescending or trying to brush you off, he was honestly asking your opinion for how we should describe this, because if we're missing you, we're likely missing other people too.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Jerry Amundson jamundso@gmail.com wrote:
Never mind. It's perfect. Don't change a thing.
No I won't let you off the hook that easily. There's no need to be sarcastic. It was a genuine question. The existing titles for the roles are a best effort. If you have a suggestions that you feel is more appealing, then please tell us. We aren't mind readers. At least not until we all have the Google neural implant installed. If I ruled the world, I'd of called that role 'Code Monkey', but its way to flippant a definition so I wouldn't seriously expect that to be generally preferred over the existing 'OS Developer' title.
The goal of the Role definitions isn't to list every individual task or subgroup. The idea is to draw rough circles around common tasks,groups and skillsets. These circles overlap. You'll notice that some groups appear under different roles.
All I am asking is to provide us with some more specific feedback on how to rename the role that is currently titled OS Developer. Its not enough to know that your confused by the current title. We need to know what would make sense to you as an alternative.
-jef
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
The goal of the Role definitions isn't to list every individual task or subgroup. The idea is to draw rough circles around common tasks,groups and skillsets. These circles overlap. You'll notice that some groups appear under different roles.
The circle OS Developer conjures up is smaller than the group we are trying to describe, but there isn't very much to those descriptions so reading more than the big headings isn't asking very much from someone who is looking for ways to contribute.
All I am asking is to provide us with some more specific feedback on how to rename the role that is currently titled OS Developer. Its not enough to know that your confused by the current title. We need to know what would make sense to you as an alternative.
The obvious thing to consider is simply dropping OS from the heading but either way if the user isn't willing to read the following 7 lines they aren't going to know what that means either.
John
inode0 wrote:
The circle OS Developer conjures up is smaller than the group we are trying to describe, but there isn't very much to those descriptions so reading more than the big headings isn't asking very much from someone who is looking for ways to contribute.
As a relatively new package maintainer, I still have fairly fresh eyes. I find the term "OS Developer" miss-leading.
If I am scanning through documentation and I see a heading like "OS Developer" which seems to exclude my area of application developer, I will tend to skip reading the text(even if it is just 7 lines). However, if the title is slightly wider than what I am looking for, such as "Developer", then I would read the text to determine if this section is applicable to the area I am searching for.
Roy
inode0 wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
All I am asking is to provide us with some more specific feedback on how to rename the role that is currently titled OS Developer. Its not enough to know that your confused by the current title. We need to know what would make sense to you as an alternative.
The obvious thing to consider is simply dropping OS from the heading but either way if the user isn't willing to read the following 7 lines they aren't going to know what that means either.
+1. And I think Roy was +1'ing it also.
My first thought was "Software Developer", but reading the description, "Software Developer" sounds to me more specific to writing code (i.e. not doc work)...
That said, I'd still prefer "Software Developer" over "OS Developer". I just prefer plain "Developer" to both.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Woehlke mw_triad@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
My first thought was "Software Developer", but reading the description, "Software Developer" sounds to me more specific to writing code (i.e. not doc work)...
Indeed... the attempt was to build a role definition that encompasses the work necessary to put the bits out the door as a major endeavor. Packaging is a big part of that. Triage is a big part of that. And so is documentation writing. The description linked to from the role title I think holds together. But the role title may not 'sell' the description as well as another title could.
-jef
On 12/22/08, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Woehlke mw_triad@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
My first thought was "Software Developer", but reading the description, "Software Developer" sounds to me more specific to writing code (i.e. not doc work)...
Indeed... the attempt was to build a role definition that encompasses the work necessary to put the bits out the door as a major endeavor. Packaging is a big part of that. Triage is a big part of that. And so is documentation writing. The description linked to from the role title I think holds together. But the role title may not 'sell' the description as well as another title could.
Just brainstorming here. Software Analyst? As you mention, many things are part of it, yet it's not entirely Packaging, nor all Triage, and most of the time not much OS either...
jerry
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad@too,much.spam> wrote:
/me coughs
My first thought was "Software Developer", but reading the description, "Software Developer" sounds to me more specific to writing code (i.e. not doc work)...
Indeed... the attempt was to build a role definition that encompasses the work necessary to put the bits out the door as a major endeavor. Packaging is a big part of that. Triage is a big part of that. And so is documentation writing. The description linked to from the role title I think holds together. But the role title may not 'sell' the description as well as another title could.
What about "Development and Support"? Except it's not a noun...
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Woehlke mw_triad@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
My first thought was "Software Developer", but reading the description, "Software Developer" sounds to me more specific to writing code (i.e. not doc work)...
Indeed... the attempt was to build a role definition that encompasses the work necessary to put the bits out the door as a major endeavor. Packaging is a big part of that. Triage is a big part of that. And so is documentation writing.
Then maybe the title needs to be slightly more verbose to encompass all of those topics.
In fact, why not have seperate "Tester", "Developer" and "Technical Writer" buttons? These are roles commonly found in the industry after all, and they could all link to the same role description if you want...
Regards, Mat
Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
All I am asking is to provide us with some more specific feedback on how to rename the role that is currently titled OS Developer. Its not enough to know that your confused by the current title. We need to know what would make sense to you as an alternative.
"Fedora Developer"? (here "Fedora" is the OS refered to, not just the kernel)
On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 19:02 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Jerry Amundson jamundso@gmail.com wrote:
That's my point. With my background, OS stands for Operating System, and I wouldn't consider for one second looking there to help with, say "xeyes". (or anything else that is not kernel*, or is not in @core for that matter...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
So what title would you use for the role in place of OS Developer? Is there a better succinct definition that would be appealing to you that encompasses the same skills,groups and tasks as listed here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join#OSDeveloper ?
"Software Engineer" seems like the obvious stodgy industry standard title.
I'd prefer "UberHacker" but we've been over that one already... ;)
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 09:51 -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote:
On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 19:02 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
So what title would you use for the role in place of OS Developer? Is there a better succinct definition that would be appealing to you that encompasses the same skills,groups and tasks as listed here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join#OSDeveloper ?
"Software Engineer" seems like the obvious stodgy industry standard title.
Let's not abuse that phrase here please. "Engineer" has various implications for the person holding the title, which while desired aren't required for membership. We should stick to "Software Developer" or something equivalently nebulous.
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 11:57 -0500, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 09:51 -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote:
On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 19:02 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
So what title would you use for the role in place of OS Developer? Is there a better succinct definition that would be appealing to you that encompasses the same skills,groups and tasks as listed here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join#OSDeveloper ?
"Software Engineer" seems like the obvious stodgy industry standard title.
Let's not abuse that phrase here please. "Engineer" has various implications for the person holding the title, which while desired aren't required for membership. We should stick to "Software Developer" or something equivalently nebulous.
Yeah I checked Wikipedia. I was unaware that "Software Engineering" was controversial. :P
Jerry Amundson wrote:
How do I resolve the Todo queue: Download a client-side certificate always appearing at login? (yes, I've downloaded it, imported it, cast it in bronze...)
Just ignore it. If you already downloaded the client cert and it hasn't expired yet, you should not download a new one, just keep the one you have.
Kevin Kofler