On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 09:46 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > In Fedora, if the choice is between proprietary infrastructure and > > nothing, we can very well choose nothing. There is nothing silly about > > sticking to the ideals of the project. > > The open-source "ideal" of the project, as far as I see it, applies only > to what is included-in/released-by Fedora (Core/Extras) (*). I agree it > certainly is appealing to be able to apply this same ideal to the > project entirely (ie, including internal project infrastructure), but my > opinion is that in this case, the cost is just too high. > > I had thought that it was a given that the fedora project absolutely > *needed* project hosting. We have to weigh this need (and possibly not > satisfying it with an open-source solution) against the cost of > upholding your theoretical ideal. It is far from clear to me why Fedora needs to provide its own infrastructure for itself rather than just use something like Savannah. > > Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that we should use sourceforge. > I'm saying that I think it is too early to say that we should not. > > -- Rex > > (*) After a quick scan of both fedora.redhat.com and fedoraproject.org, > I couldn't find any definition of Fedora's ideals/goals (I'm sure it's > there somewhere). I'll be perfectly happy to shut up if a definitive > definition of Fedora and it's goals/ideals exists, that says these > ideals apply to Fedora infrastructure as well. That is what we are trying to define here I believe. You think the ideals of providing a Free and open source system doesnt apply to its infrastructure. I think it absolutely does. When we reach consensus we can write it down somewhere and call it definitive. Rahul
