On 08/14/2013 01:00 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:04:41AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I don't see any harm I guess in fesco deciding that we are in favor in
general of this plan and ask the Board if we are going down a path they
don't want us to before writing up concrete proposals.
Yeah, I was hoping to have discussion from Flock written up nicely for us to
talk about at this meeting, but given the time and that I haven't eaten
_breakfast_ yet, I don't think that's going to happen. For this meeting, I
have several separate proposals:
1. In order to build what we need for the future of Fedora, FESCO endorses
the idea of moving from a one-policy-fits-all-software policy to a tiered
model as roughly laid out in http://mattdm.org/fedora/next, and
recommends this to the board as the technical underpinning of our
strategic direction.
2. FESCO-created working group to draft Fedora Base Design as called for
in that proposal.
Has fesco already created that working group if so who's on it?
3. FESCO-created working group to draft Ring 2 policies and infrastructure
needs.
Has fesco already created that working group if so who's on it?
Also, not yet ready for a proposal but maybe for discussion:
<snip>
* These products would be Fedora Workstation, Fedora Server, and Fedora
Cloud (precise definitions to be developed), based around a common core
shared wherever possible and with infrastructure for other groups based
around other possible products to develop.
The above does not solve historic problem and differences in our
community and arguably gives us no benefits of implementing over what we
currently have.
For example what would be the default desktop in the "Fedora
workstation" and why ?
Would we be defaulting and or recommending one application over another
in "Fedora server" for example openldap vs 389ds, kvm vs xen, postgresql
vs mariadb if so why?
Given that the above proposal are not direct products of SIG's who's in
control of what goes in and what goes out of the Fedora Workstation,
Fedora Server, and Fedora Cloud and their target audience ?
As I see it the above part of the proposal only splits the "default"
product into three different "products" without actually solving anything.
Since I dont see how that you propose addresses and or solves any of the
issues we are faced with I argue the way forward for us should be that
Fedora "products" are the results/publication of each sub-community but
not creation of whom releng/fesco/board specific Fedora individual or as
an whole Fedora Workstation, Fedora Server, and Fedora Cloud SIG?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
