On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:58:32AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote: > > * Fedora Workstation > Will this subsume Live-Desktop.iso and Live-KDE.iso? > What about other current desktop Spins? > Presumably some of these might have a secondary WG. Right -- one of the key things we need to do is work on the infrastructure for building these products in general, and make that infrastructure available to SIGs for possible products outside the initial primary ones. > > * Fedora Server > I am assume this would include a GUI I'm not assuming either way. From my sysadmin background, I would expect that it _wouldn't_, but I also know that having a server GUI is important to some people. > > * Fedora Cloud > and this no GUI. Right, now, that I'm pretty sure of. > > * Base Design Working Group > @core > @standard > @? Somewhere like that, except for more carefully designed and maintained, and with a charter for working with the needs of the higher levels as a real, meaningful base os. > What about the main toolchain, devel languages, and X/Wayland, etc? > Would they fit in here too, or would they be covered by FESCo? They'd fit somewhere else -- roughly where they always have been. There is an idea for something like "the Fedora Commons", except we can't call it that because that name is taken by the _other_ Fedora (the digital repository software). > ((Will each product with iso's will have its own netinst.iso, > or would it allow choosing the product? TBD presumably...)) Yes, TBD. I think that possibly only the desktop will produce a traditional install ISO, the server might be a netinstall plus a collection of shared kickstarts in a git repo, and the cloud image will be a qcow2 + available in cloud providers. But it's all to be worked out. > > * Environments & Software Stacks Working Group > Might this involve separate repos building on top of the main fedora repos? Definitely. > Will all the products remain on the same schedule? Initially, yes. We can look at diverging in the future if that starts seeming like a good idea. > Will spins require secondary WG's? > What will be the process for starting a secondary WG? Start a SIG or work in the existing one. Basically the process will be just like the promotion of secondary architectures -- start meeting the general criteria that the primaries are held to, show ability to produce the product consistently and meet whatever standards, and then FESCo will approve it. We don't have a process for this worked out, and in the interest of not overwhelming ourselves with paperwork I think we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Fedora has long had a distinction between a "sub project" and a SIG. The Working Groups are more like the former -- they need to have a formal governance structure, regular communications, and so on. SIGs are just a collection of interested people, which may or may not strive to become more formal. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
