Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 09:46 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >> 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. Single sign-on (with the rest of fedoraproject.org bits) would be nice, but I suppose it's not a deal-breaker. I can live with hosting stuff at savannah.gnu.org (or savannah.nongnu.org) too. Ideally, we could host it ourselves (gna.org/projects/savane), but then we get into the time/energy/resources problem again. >> (*) 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. I would have to agree that it would send mixed messages to the community if Fedora didn't eat it's own open-source cake. -- Rex
