----- Original Message ----- > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The KDE SIG would like public comment and feedback on a new Fedora.next > > product proposal: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Plasma_Product > > > > mostly on the base proposal, Governance and PRD bits. Other stuff like > > Technical spec are still undergoing polish. > > I went from pretty excited initially to a bit disappointed that the > PRD seems to mostly be snipped from the Workstation PRD. I was hoping > for something with a more original vision I guess. So my first comment > really is meant to encourage the Fedora Plasma Product to create more > separation between itself and the Workstation Product. Two products > with a very similar vision I suspect will be a hard sell generally. Well, I told Lukas, that it's sometimes too much Workstation copy-paste, I did a few edits, we removed a lot of stuff as 3rd party software we're not big fans etc. There's reason why it should be - in some sort, we want to be as close to Workstation as possible but to target different audience. > Two of the statements in the Workstation PRD that I objected to I see > again in the Plasma PRD. > > The section Packaging for Fedora Plasma ends with the sentence, "No > software will be blocked from being packaged as long as it doesn't > break any part of the core desktop system upon install." The word > "packaged" here is pretty loaded and suggests we are going beyond just > saying that the offensive package will be excluded from the Plasma > product. Would "No software will be blocked from being available to a > Plasma installation as long as it doesn't break any part of the core > desktop system upon install," mean the same thing to you? Or maybe > that sentence could just be dropped entirely. We welcome all sorts of > additional software ... with no mention of some nebulous large hammer > that will fall on software deemed offensive to some other unspecified > set of software? Good point, we will drop it. > The section Other tasks for working group concludes with "The working > group will also regularly meet with a designated representative of Red > Hat to discuss how Red Hats product and development plans will affect > the Fedora product development and resource allocation." This still > raises questions. Who is designating the representative of Red Hat? > Common sense says it would be a person designated by Red Hat to > discuss these things with the working group but that wasn't what I was > told when it came to the Workstation PRD. So what does this mean in > the Plasma PRD. In both cases, although more so in this case, it just > seems odd to make a statement like this limited to a representative of > Red Hat. Can't it simply be generalized to express your interest in > collaborating closely with other strategic partners? I'm ok with this "other strategic partners" wording. Jaroslav > John > _______________________________________________ > advisory-board mailing list > advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
