On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > *Individual spins* (including the default spin) > > > would definitely benefit from targeting specific audiences but the Board and > > > FESCo's responsibility is to help all the sub-communities that make up > > > Fedora be able to derive usable products from the Fedora Package Collection. > > > This means mediating disputes, drumming up support for switching base parts > > > of our architecture (like moving from SysVinit to upstart), and defining the > > > absolute limitations that the Fedora Project will follow (free software, > > > legality within the US). > > > > > > > The funny thing here is I think spins are a detriment to Fedora. We > > pretend they're useful and interesting but they're really not. If we > > describe them as "a subset of what is in the Everything/ directory" which > > is what they are, they're not at all compelling. > > > Spins aren't best described as a subset of the packages in the Everything > repo. A better description is that they are a particular group of > contributors' vision of what an operating system should look like. This > seems like a compelling way of filling that niche. > This is a problem that happens in my mind but is so complex I don't know if I just made it up or if it's an actual problem. So I'm calling out the Dieter (from the KDE sig) though anyone in any sig should feel free to respond. If you're building and putting out the FEL spin, KDE spin or whatever. Is that exactly what you wanted to put out? Or is it less then that because you only control the small parts that make it different? In my mind this would be a problem but I very well may have invented this problem since I myself don't actually put out any spins. > > > Sure. But how do you define OS? Is it the set of packages in the Everything > repo? Is it the default spin? And once you define the OS, how do you take > all the people scratching their itches via the Fedora Package Collection and > define a target audience that addreses all of them? > I'd define the OS as what you get *after* installation. You'll note a live media isn't included in that. It feels more like marketing to me since it's probably rare for people to just regularly boot the live cd for anything other then testing. > I think that Fedora the OS and Fedora the Project are currently too close. > The Fedora Project should be about growing the comunity that produces Fedora > OSes. The Fedora OSes should be allowed to both grow and die as the demand > to create them arises. Defining target audiences for the individual OSes is > fine but it should not be applied to the Project as a whole. The Project > should be the foundation that allows the OSes to grow and meet the target > audiences that they want to address. > But how can they do that if they still have to work in our restrictive rules? Most of which are put in place because letting each group have total control over their own live cd and still call it Fedora is a MASSIVE undertaking and probably manpower failure. We're talking forks, multiple versions of each package, etc, etc. -Mike _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
