On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:29 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > On 10/08/2009 05:10 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:04 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: > >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Adam Jackson wrote: > >>> The fallacy here is the implication that any given Fedora spin is > >>> equivalent to an unqualified "Fedora". > >> > >> It's not? I thought all fedora spins had to be 'fedora'. And why is the > >> kde or xfce spin necessarily less 'fedora' than any other? Isn't it that > >> way by the decision of the board? > > > > They have to be Fedora in that they have to be composed from bits that > > are in Fedora CVS, sure. > > > > If you're trying to get me to say that some spins are more equal than > > others: some spins are more equal than others.I think that's manifest > > from history, and from the amount of developer effort present in the > > various spins. I think that explicit acknowledgement of this is a > > positive thing for the distribution and the project. > > The Board has already acknowledged this when we made the desktop spin > the default. We cited pretty much every point you made; both proposals > that were brought to the table (one by Spot and one by myself) > explicitly mentioned all those points). I was pretty sure you had, yeah. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
