On 26 March 2014 10:57, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I asked FESCo to open a ticket to get the Board to weigh in on thisOn Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26 March 2014 10:11, Matthias Clasen <mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 14:29 -0500, inode0 wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> I agree with this paragraph.
>>
>> A product should really have a distinct use case (or cases) that it is
>> trying to address. Something like 'Fedora media center' or 'Fedora
>> kiosk' would be an excellent addition to the product lineup. If we take
>> the workstation specs and just s/G/K/ or s/G/X/, we end up back in the
>> place we were with spins - too much choice, and too little
>> differentiation.
>>
>
> Could a unified consensus of what is wanted in products please be presented
> by the Board to potential groups? Round 1 seems to have been "Here use these
> accepted PRD's and communication as a guideline for what we want." Round 2
> seems to be "Don't use these accepted PRD's and communication as a guideline
> of what we want."
product request. (HINT FESCO.)
> I realize that this new all around and 'We know what we like when we finallyI think your Round 2 paraphrasing is a major oversimplification.
> see it." but a little help might make this not a daily exercise of
> frustration.
Of course it is. So was my paraphrasing of Round 1. However that is my gut reaction from an outside viewpoint (I am not 'for' or 'against' the Plasma product.)
Unless it is clear that there needs to be clear and noticeable differentiation in Request for Proposals you will end up with Cookie Cutting a lot. Because way too much of how we handle stuff is about cookie cutting (packaging, file layout, etc etc because it needs to be or we would die in complexity). In fact the norm outside of this set is that you want or have to cookie cutter your Request for Proposals or you are going to be filtered out immediately. Thus when you want unique, clearly differentiated proposals you must say so or you are going to end up with the same proposal every time with maybe someone using a thesaurus to change out some of the words.
Simply copying an existing product and changing a few things to make a
similar product doesn't mean it's magically a product. It is not at
all unreasonable to expect noticeable differentiation in new product
proposals.
The KDE Plasma Product proposal might get there very quickly, but as
it is written today it isn't clear to everyone exactly why it's
different/needed.
josh
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
