On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 10:21 AM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From a format perspective, please allow me to say "wow". This is > great. My only suggestion would be to put a quick summary of the > desired end state at the beginning in case I'm too lazy to read it all > the way through. Agreed -- I'll try to add that early in the discovery part so that we know there's broad agreement on that state. I have a few things in mind, like modernizing compose in a way that makes it more adaptable to other users, but we also need to be careful about not being too pie-in-the-sky. > As for the substance, what I'd like to see explicitly mentioned is the > benefit to Fedora. You talk about not having to constrain ourselves to > the platform's release schedule, but I feel like there's one more step > there. What will the decoupling of application and platform truly mean > for someone who is using a Fedora deliverable? Right now, contributors have to line up behind a single process, with little latitude to own anything. We've made it easy to package lots of things, but we clutch tightly the reins that allow the community to own more of that process. It also means we have an extraordinarily large release surface that's a struggle, even though, for example, our QA and rel-eng teams are phenomenal. If we cut down what we need to encompass in a platform release, it potentially yields less material to track, compose, and test. But we can't do just that; we also need to give working groups, SIGs, and other contributors ways to release their stacks in a coordinated way outside the platform. Modularity is one way to do that, although there are likely others. From the user perspective, one benefit is additional options for the platform itself without requiring longer term maintenance of volunteer-provided packages. Others include less lag time for a popular new stack, and being able to have the same stack across multiple platforms (Fedora N-1 and N, for example). > I ask this in part because I would want to pre-address concerns from > the community, press, etc, that Fedora as an OS is dead. It's an > uncharitable interpretation of your proposal, but I can see it coming > up. My conversation with Adam Samalik last night clarified it some for > me, but I feel like there's some assumed knowledge in this that I > don't have. > > None of this is to say I'm in any way opposed to the proposal, I just > don't quiiiiite get it, and I'd like to. Dead? No way. But maybe "steady state" is a better way of saying it. We haven't tried extraordinarily hard in the past to carve out the platform like this. In one sense, that's probably because people are worried about engendering a "Core vs. Extras" worry from the old days of Fedora. That's not what this proposal is about. Even though we're talking about a content split, it's not designed to wall off the OS from community input or contribution. It's in service of letting us diversify what, how, and when we make -- IOW, making our process serve our goals, rather than letting the reverse be true. -- Paul _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
