On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 20:29 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 02/03/2014 08:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I don't think we necessarily need to pursue this debate any further in > > this context - I just don't think it's necessary for either point of > > view. > > > > The Workstation "product" WG gets to define the lines that bound the > > Workstation product. But: > > > > * it doesn't get to define anything in particular about the > > non-Workstation space > > * it doesn't get to decide precisely how our marketing is going to work > > So KDE and rest can come up with their own product and related Fedora > brand or are you saying that WG's own those "spaces" and related brands > ( cloud/server/workstation ) and no one can competed with them? As I understand it, there is nothing about the .next process which precludes the creation of, say, a KDE Product. It's been noted in this thread that if we go down the road of creating more and more products, we get back to the problem of deciding and communicating their relative precedence: but that, again, is a discussion that has to happen on a project-wide basis, it's kind of pointless to argue about it within the context of a specific WG. The Board and FESCo have already approved the Workstation product. The Workstation WG has decided - I believe - they want that product to be based around a single desktop, not attempt to stake a claim on the entire space: that's what I asked in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-January/008834.html , and what Josh answered clearly in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-January/008835.html : "To be honest, I think that's up to the FESCo/Board level. There are spins that extend beyond just choice of DE, and people could want to create different spins of Server, etc. So I personally wouldn't advocate for the Workstation WG to solve that issue." Again, I really think the most productive way forward here is to let the Workstation WG get on with the business of deciding their desktop and starting to define and work on the product they will be creating. I think there are important and useful discussions to be had about how we handle desktops that are *not* the one the Workstation product is based around, but it makes no sense to discuss those questions here, given the above. Those questions are for the project as a whole to resolve. There are all sorts of things we can consider, and a lot of them are already being discussed in the unfortunately titled "fate of Spins" thread on devel@. That seems like the appropriate - or at least, a *more* appropriate - venue to me, as it is not in a thread about the Workstation product on a list which is specifically for the desktop spin and the Workstation WG/product. It might be appropriate to consider these issues here *if the Workstation WG / Product appeared to be trying to do something controversial in regard to the question of what to do about other desktops*, but I really can't see that they are. As linked above, Josh has explicitly suggested that's up to FESCo/Board (i.e. the project as a whole), and I can't find a single person who's disagreed. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
