Roll call! Rebuilding a Community Ops team in 2023?

Oh nooooo CA: America’s most dysfunctional company :slight_smile:

lol I concede

I started grouping this discussion into a GitLab epic, which I will attempt to use as a way to organize this research and propose a trial period for a “CommOps” (or related) team.

I was thinking more about the name. I am thinking there is more to gain by continuing to use CommOps as the team name, so that the team benefits from wider recognition and an established name working to its advantage. For example, the Mindshare Committee and Ambassador program has some policies and documentation specific to CommOps. With CommOps officially going defunct in favor of a new team, there would be extra work of transitioning old policies and decision-making models to the new team, or somewhere else in Fedora.

The shorthand is the confusing part for me.

Regarding CommArch, I think that misses the mark. Architecture for me
implies (planning for a) building. While that may apply in some
situations, the team is more about enabling people in the community
(helping them) to build something.

Edit: I had quoted below part in my e-mail reply. I really don’t understand when Discourse decides to drop quotes and when not. :slightly_frowning_face:

In IT most people would read CA as Certificate Authority, I guess. Here in Europe, it’s most often associated, outside IT with Crédit Agricole - a French bank.

As long as we make sure to write Community Operations (CommOps) at the start of posts/documents, it should be fine. But it’s still an unfortunate ambiguity.

Justin just said “Community Ops” (in a video call) and I think there we go, name problem settled.

1 Like

If we have the name figured out, it can only get easier from here. Right? :grinning: :wink:

1 Like

So, it seems like the dust is settling. The feedback shared so far is great. It helped me to get this out of my head and hear what other people have to say. Thank you all!

Call to action

Do you want to be part of a new Community Ops team? Does the things described here sound interesting? If yes, then please add your name to this wiki table under the Expression of Interest section. As we get closer to rebooting the team, this list will serve as the starting place for getting a group of motivated Fedora contributors together:

The next step will be launching an initiative to (re-)build this team. I am committed to backing the initiative as a lead and and team chair. However, I would have the capacity to drive this after Flock concludes in August[1].

So, what can you expect from me in the coming months?

There will be more Discussion threads in the commops-team tag. I suggest following/subscribing to this tag specifically if you want to keep up with the conversations or participate with the team.

I also want to start building up the roster of interested folks. The wiki page above is this first step toward this. I encourage you to edit your name in if this is interesting to you.

  1. The virtual release party and Flock will consume a huge chunk of my time until August. This year, it is my first time in the organizer seat for both of these events and it is a learning experience for me! Hopefully next year, it will feel more natural, but right now, I need to give the proper bandwidth to making these two events successful. ↩︎

1 Like

How about “Community Service” or “Contributor Service” (my preference of the 2). The group could be “Contributor Service Committee (or … … Group)” or even better “Contributor Operations Group” aka COGs :gear: :grin: ContribOps retains the clarity of purpose in abbreviated form as well… The reason being I understand Community or Contributor to describe different, albeit often overlapping, functions of the overall “base users” or broader Community. Or rather Contributors to be a subset within the Community, even if the desire or goal is for all community members to be Contributors of some form, most, including myself, still think of it as having a distinction.

With a Symlink : CommOps = ContribOps
So no need for immediate changes in docs… :laughing: I mean I’ve let y’all symlink my ~/ so nothing is too sacred :innocent:

@sowow Not a bad idea. What do you think about the three things that this new team would do? Naming might become easier once the kind of work that the team does is established.

1 Like

I would help out with the team if I had more bandwidth, but I’m tight with my job right now and expect to be even busier in the next few months. :confused:

1 Like

I was browsing through past presentations and workshops and found this abstract from 2017 for a talk about CommOps I planned to give but never did. Leaving it here as additional context and future reference: