On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 09:54:39PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: > But if the council allows us to do so, I'd like to keep the colored logo > for Fedora Cloud as we don't want to give the impression that it's not an > official product or less supported that it actually is. We have a lot of official Fedora -- let's avoid the word "product" here just for unambiguity -- "things-we-produce" which get the less-prominent logo, including the release-blocking KDE spin. These aren't less _Fedora_ than Cloud / Server / Workstation are today — they're just not in the "Editions" bucket. The color vs. gray representation comes from the Design team, not the Council. If cloud WG wants to ask the Council to have four editions, Workstation / Server / Cloud / Atomic, rather than pivoting to Workstation / Server / Atomic.... well, I'm not opposed to the _request_ but do obviously have an opinion. Restating that opinion for the record: we worked on the Editions (née Products) proposal for a long time, coming from a lot of different possible directions, and we settled on asking for Editions which aim for relatively narrow use cases with specific user targets, with the goal of growing Fedora in new ways. Even though all of our work on the Cloud Base image has been awesome (and I hope useful to people), it never really fit that, especially without some of the things like SCLs for language stacks that would have provided a good story. So, some 80% of my enthusiasm for Fedora Atomic comes simply because it *does* fit that picture so well. (That I also think it's a major step in OS evolution is just... icing on the cake.) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
