On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:38:38PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:52:55PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 05:16:14PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> >On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:11:47PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >> >> The way things are now "works" because of status quo. We tell anybody >> >> who wants to change status quo to go start a fork and do it there. >> >> >> >Wait... The entire list of times I can remember someone being encouraged to >> >take their contributions elsewhere are: >> > >> >1) Kernel modules >> >2) Non-free software >> >3) Free software with legal issues >> >4) I think something to do with packaging content may have resulted in >> > something but I don't know anything about the outcome there. >> > >> >Who's been told to fork Fedora because of the status-quo-target-audience? >> >> Not in so many words, but the whole Zope/Plone fiasco from a few releases >> ago seems a prime example here. Fedora moved on with python, and we didn't >> allow a compat-python package for Zope and Plone to continue working. The >> reasons were varied, but they boiled down to python being a framework and >> having two frameworks providing almost identical things was not deemed to >> be something Fedora was going to do [1]. >> >Once again, not a target audience decision. We didn't say, "Fedora is not >for web developers, therefore we don't care enough to support zope and >plone". We said, the python maintainer thinks that supporting multiple >python stacks is infeasible therefore we aren't going to support this. It >was a contributor and technical decision. Not a target-audience decision. It is. It's one step removed. There were people actively wanting to make Zope/Plone work via a compat-python stack. It went all the way to FESCo and got voted down. The zope/plone users were the target audience there. There were people willing to do the work, all they needed was a yes from FESCo. We told them no. As Jesse has mentioned, 'status quo' won out. >> Those are the kinds of headaches Bill is talking about. >> >And I agree there are headaches there. But I think if something is valuable >enough to a contributor, they'll step up to solve the headaches if they're >requisites to being able to fulfill their vision. Instead of forbidding >things we should be identifying the headaches and allowing them Not sure if you truncated that last sentence, but this whole paragraph sounds counter to your one above. >After all, everything we do now is one big headache. Yet we have >contributors willing to deal with every aspect of that. Everything we do is a big headache? I'm prone to hyperbole myself, but that's a bit over the top. If everything was a headache, nobody would volunteer for it. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
