On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > My take: we figure out favorite collections and build ISOs for each of
> > them. Making sure they all "work" in conjunction with Core could be
> > tricky -- but we could perhaps ask prominent community folks to "release
> > manage" their favorite collections. In the long term, we allow anyone to
> > create their own collections as well, perhaps using the tools and rules
> > that we end up developing to maintain the favorite collections.
>
> The problem I see is we need the trademark ducks in a row before
> we can do much of this, as it was a barrier to Extras CDs in the past.
> Perhaps I'm missing something important that changed this.
We just need to finalize a policy that details precisely how Core and
Extras fit together. If we have a coherent universe, and we have
standards that allow someone to mix and match from this universe to create
their own distro, then we should have the ability to say "this distro is
related to Fedora." Counsel agrees with this in theory; we just need to
come up with the concrete proposals to Make it Real.
> > One more thing: What about "Fedora Commons" instead of "Fedora Extras"? I
> > realize that it then overloads the FC acronym, but "Extras" seems wrong to
> > me now, especially since we're going to be relying so much upon Extras
> > over time.
>
> Contrib! *ducks*
>
> Would Commons get confused with a patent commons?
Hrm. I suppose it might. Personally, though, I think that the "commons"
message is one of the strongest out there. Merits thought, though.
--g
_____________________ ____________________________________________
Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the
Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the
] [ dumb. --mcluhan
