>>>>> "RS" == Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: RS> If you call the secondary architecture, community driven wouldnt RS> that imply that the primary architectures arent? Hey, it was just an example. But are you saying that isn't the case? Here I quote spot: > Primary: Red Hat drives the arch forward, ensures that it works, or > else, Fedora is in a bad bad place. > Secondary: Community drives the arch forward, ensures that it works, but > if it doesn't, the majority of the Fedora universe remains intact. So just adding "Community driven" to the architectures that are built on community-run hardware outside of Red Hat's data centers doesn't seem at all incorrect. I was only keying off of the text of the message I was responding to. But of course I explicitly indicated that I wasn't arguing that the words "community driven" are the only two words that would work there; I was saying that it would be best some wording was chosen that didn't imply that the secondary architectures are somehow worse. It would have been nice if you could have discussed the intent of my message instead of picking out a small piece to comment on. - J< _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
