Peter Robinson wrote:
I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the vast majority of contributors either like the change or aren't bothered by it. There's certainly no proof that it'll make anything worse. That doesn't mean its going to be perfect or without teething problems as the changes are made and things settle down.
There's plenty of reasons why you haven't seen any negative feedback. I'll share my views on this subject since I'm in the "not sure" ballpark of this new process.
Where's the benefit of creating a handful of workgroups that now have some sort of power over the distribution? After reading all of the emails in the past week I have yet to see any benefits of this "Fedora.next" process. I agree Fedora needs to continue to evolve, but this process appears to shake the foundations of Fedora. Specifics: Different kernels per "product", app sandboxing (lib bundling). Will the DVD/Live ISOs currently created cease to exist F21+? Fragmentation of Fedora into Cloud/Workstation/Server "products"? I'm just randomly spitting out ideas in my head that come to mind, but you cannot expect that silence equates to agreement in your favor.
It strikes me as odd at the large number of @redhat accounts and small number of non-@redhat accounts in favor of this new process. Who is in charge of evolving Fedora at this point? I do value Red Hat involvement, but I don't want the common myth of "Fedora = Red Hat beta" to become a fact.
I'm still going to keep my ears open and attempt at digesting what this new idea is bringing to the table, but it hasn't sit well on my stomach so far.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
