On 07/23/2013 05:13 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:51:43PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
If people are interested in stepping up to make this happen and have a
long-term sustainable plan, that would be awesome.
Come to think of it Red Hat itself is not willing to invest in
extended release cycle of Fedora even if it bridge only the cap
between RHEL releases so those individual willing to do the work
would have to co-own the relevant components that all the RH
employees own.
This is making the totally wrong assumption that Red Hat employees only
contribute to Fedora where they are told to; that is certainly not
universally the case and even more certainly not the case for the Red Hat
employees who are very active and visible in the community.
It was the "universal case" I was referring to.
That said, yes: Fedora relies significantly on engineering time and other
resources paid for by Red Hat, and if we want to extend this in a guaranteed
way, we need to make the case that it's in Red Hat's best interest to do so.
Complaining that they ought to isn't sufficient; it needs to be compelling.
I think you misunderstood me Red Hat has already declined that thus
there is no point in making a case for that now or in the future their
denial stands...
( That denial is hidden in the board tracker )
(And, fundamentally, this comes down to what I said earlier: it's to
Fedora's advantage that we have a close relationship with our downstream
distribution.)
And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the
long term standing on our own two feets then working with downstream or
be dependant on RH on way or another or some other sponsor.
So we are at impasse regarding this matter so no need to discuss that
further.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
