CentOS - Dec 2015 - wifi on servers and fedora [was Re: 7.2 kernel panic on boot]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 11:54:57AM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> > Working with your employer to fix the "will not allow Fedora
into the
>> > premises" part seems like a good start.
>> <snip>
>> Why? Fedora is a development, rapid change distro. I just bugged one of
>> my
>
> Because of the context of this conversation. We can't have user
> feedback and involvement without user feedback and involvement.
So, you're saying that end users need to go poke their noses into the
development process, but that developers don't need to poke their noses
out to the end users... or at least, that's how I read what you're
saying.

        mark

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us
wrote:
> >> Why? Fedora is a development, rapid change distro. I just bugged
one of
> > Because of the context of this conversation. We can't have user
> > feedback and involvement without user feedback and involvement.
> So, you're saying that end users need to go poke their noses into the
> development process, but that developers don't need to poke their noses
> out to the end users... or at least, that's how I read what you're
saying.
If you want to go out of your way to read it that way, it's hard to
stop you. However, it's not what I'm saying. The development process is
conducted in the open for a reason.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 01:05:15PM -0500, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>> >> Why? Fedora is a development, rapid change distro. I just
bugged one
>> of
>> > Because of the context of this conversation. We can't have
user
>> > feedback and involvement without user feedback and involvement.
>> So, you're saying that end users need to go poke their noses into
the
>> development process, but that developers don't need to poke their
noses
>> out to the end users... or at least, that's how I read what
you're
>> saying.
>
> If you want to go out of your way to read it that way, it's hard to
> stop you. However, it's not what I'm saying. The development
process is
> conducted in the open for a reason.
I don't see that as going "out of my way". Let's put it this
way: how many
times have folks on the development side poked their nose in here - the
general redhat list is pretty dead - and asked anything? I've been here
since '09, and I *think* that maybe once, *maybe* twice, someone asked
something here, who was on that side of the house.

Perhaps, if it's open, it should be a two way street, not one way, for us
to take time from what we're being paid for, to hit that side.

Oh, and btw, we *do* have a few RH licenses... and for those who have to
deal with smart card ID cards, you can thank my manager for pushing
through native support in RHEL 7. So I guess you could say we do,
sometimes, go to the development side.

       mark