[Userops] What is "userops", and who does it target?

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Blaise Alleyne writes:

> But maybe that's not the point... maybe the target audience for userops is
> *still* a bit more of a technically savvy audience? But the goal is to lower 
> the
> bar from "developer/sysadmin" to "somewhat technically savvy computer user"?
>
> This changes my thinking (misconceptions?) about userops... from the
> impossibility of making something that the average user could actually use,
> towards maybe just significantly lowering the bar.
>
> For me, recognizing that there are still many users for which a total dream
> userops setup would *still* be too complex and inaccessible, it highlights for
> me that userops efforts also still really need to be about "self-hosting" for
> *other* people too...

This is a good point.  First of all, it's worth noting that "userops" is
a vague term, totally undefined at this point, more of a rallying cry
for people working on similar issues, but it's probably worth defining.

Here's attempt one at a definition:

  Userops is about deployment solutions that target users rather than
  developers or businesses.

But wait, that's not right.  Many times, developers *are* users, if we
think in the "user freedom" style of users.  Sometimes, users are
hackers.  So, try two:

  Userops is about deployment solutions targeting user freedom, rather
  than developer freedom.

This one I think has more bite: it's still a bit loose, but I think it
gives us a better picture of things.  One might say that the whole state
of the current "free software dark ages" has probably come from a shift
to making sure that developers have a maxmimum of ability to write
software and employment opportunities, but not really worrying about how
that affects the end-user.  But if we're worried about end-user
freedoms, that changes our focus.

But okay, hackers can be users, but are we also only interested in
freeing hackers, what are we achieving?  That sounds like freedom for
the technically privileged.  But true, maybe hackers can help run some
services for their family and friends, which currently already is pretty
hard, so that might at least make some movement towards success.

Thus, I suggest there are several "milestones" of categories that
userops systems could succesfully target.  (These are loose, abstract
categories.  Of course it's not true that people just neatly fit into
these roles.)

0) Big companies and developers with a high level of technical privilege
   and enormous amounts of time, one way or another, to come to learn
   and understand whole systems and keep them deployed.  I'd say this is
   the current "devops" focus.  Hopefully "userops" systems aim for
   better!

1) The people on this list deploying their own servers for themselves,
   family, friends.  I assume this list is also full of the highly
   technically privileged, but maybe we want to be able to reuse each
   others' deployment strategies and build tools that reduce the amount
   of time and effort required for us to self-host.

2) Your "average" free software operating system user.  Intentionally a
   bit vague!  Assume they know how to install packages, maybe through
   something graphical like synaptic usually, but can follow some
   tutorial online and drop down to the command line if they really need
   to.  This milestone is all about making your userops system "as easy
   as" running synaptic or apt-get/yum, which is to say, it could be
   better, but most of the system has been simplified for you.   

   (Note: If you think "don't distro package managers already solve
   this?" I'd encourage you to watch the talk Deb and I gave at FOSDEM
   this year:)

     
http://ftp.belnet.be/FOSDEM/2015/devroom-distributions/can_distros_make_the_link%3f_lets_package_the_customizable,_free_software_web_of_the_future!_.mp4

3) The "tech-savvy" family member.  This person is the person who
   usually installs the wifi router for the household and usually gets
   asked to help other family members deal with basic problems.

   Most family members have someone who knows well enough to help others
   debug.  Maybe your system has some tricky edges to it, so that person
   may help other family members come up to speed, or install something
   for everyone else on their behalf.

   (Aside: if you reference this example, please don't use sexist/ageist
   tropes when describing roles.)

4) A very non-technical user.  This person may be able to install
   applications from (sorry to use this term) "an app store" or etc, and
   interacts with computers, but lacks a lot of self confidence or
   skills regarding understanding how the technology they're working
   with works at all.

As such, I think that's a spectrum of usability... anything along 1-4 is
helpful in some ways, though the closer we can get towards 4, the more
we can help individuals be autonomous.

Personally, the system I am working is being architected for an end
result of maybe hitting 3, but the initial implementation will be
targeting 0-1 with a roadmap for hitting 2-3 along the way.

What do people think?  Is that a reasonable way to frame things?

 - Chris