On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:28:14AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote: >On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:40:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:08:46PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote: >> >On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:28:22PM -0500, Scott Williams wrote: >> >> Rahul, >> >> >> >> Jesse Keating still owns fedoralegacy.org and so far has requested we >> >> not use that name. Tentatively looking at FedoraForever.org. We >> >> would like to use Fedora in the domain name since we will be packaging >> >> security updates explicitly for EOL Fedora versions. I have also >> >> looked into working under Fedora Unity, but at this time we will >> >> remain separate projects. >> > >> >Any reason why a separate domain name is needed? Why not something >> >like eol-security.fedoraproject.org for a server name, which FI can >> >redirect to your hosting service? >> >> Because that has the implication that it's part of the fedora project, >> which I don't think is the case here. At least not yet. > >Yeah, but I tend to dislike the practice of forcing a new >idea/subproject to have to distinguish (at a domain level) it's place >in the Fedora universe. Seems like it adds a lot of overhead to push >past the status quo. > >Can't we, with website verbage, control the message we want end users >to understand? If not, is another domain really going to make that >much of a difference in that message being understood? We could try, but people hardly ever read that stuff. My primary concern is getting bugs/requests for packages in the main Fedora bugzilla and lists for stuff that is EOL. We have an EOL for a reason. That's possible whether a new domain is created or not. I'm just wondering if it would exacerbate the situation even more if it was just a sub-domain of fp.o josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board