On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 05:38:21PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> processors to data visualization to IDEs to educational tools. This >> furthers the impression that the goal of this product is specifically >> focused on the technology implementation (QT/KDE). > > And to echo my comments from the devel list and the FESCo ticket... I think > it's great to have technology-focused things in Fedora, but to me, those > should be spins. The products should be user- and use-case focused. I'm > concerned that this proposal is at least largely (if not entirely) coming out > of fear that technologies which aren't the main focus of products will be at > a big disadvantage in Fedora. If that's the case, I'd rather work on solving > that directly. Let's remove the causes of fear, rather than artificially > shoehorning something into the product space when that's not _really_ what > the problem is. Spins are disadvantaged, they always have been. So how would you view a hypothetical product proposal for a Fedora Media Center Product? Should that be a spin? Should that be a "spin" built from the Server Product? Is there a difference between a spin and something built from a Product and how we present those to the public? > We're planning on promoting solution-area products as a primary view, but we > can provide a tech-showcase view too, and we can make that shiny and > appealing as well. If the worry is that KDE is going to be lost in a 100 > remixes and spins, let's give it a special spotlight. As already noted, > we're okay with keeping the spin release-blocking even if it isn't a > product. Until the KDE folks express their concerns if they have them directly I'd rather not guess what they might be. John _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
