On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 4:20 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd <bexelbie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Resurrecting this for one more question and starting with a top post (gasp): > > I was re-reading the entire proposal this morning while considering my > vote. This time through, I thought to myself, "How does this overlap > with our existing modularity objective?" Can you touch on that, as it > seems both of these will be touching some of the same "parts." One way to look at it is an expansion or follow-up to Modularity. In fact, many of the same people are involved. Bringing modularity to the distro, however, isn't the same as re-engineering the distro to support the lifecycle split we talked about at Flock. For now the Modularity WG is starting to track this work because of the cross over. In formulating the objective we decided it wouldn't make sense to make a completely different group. We might look at renaming to take on the expanded scope, but as long as we're clear about where community members can follow the action, that shouldn't be a source of confusion. -- 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
