Matthew Miller wrote:
Again, I don't think I'd phrase it that way. We want to target different use cases differently. Up until now, people who want to run Fedora on servers (and there are a lot of them -- I was just at Usenix LISA and spoke to many people doing so) have been to some degree at the mercy of decisions made for "the default offering", and the only thing stopping that has been sudden interventions from Red Hat regarding RHEL needs when there's a perception that things have gone "astray". That's not a good way to do it -- there should be a Fedora Server voice in its own right.
Perhaps Fedora has been marketed incorrectly. There's nothing wrong with running Fedora on anything from a Pi to a 16+ core server, but the main download for Fedora touts it as a Desktop distribution. Perhaps announcing there is a Server product will sway those users into looking at Fedora, but it could have been done with a change to the web site.
Still, fragmentation wouldn't be a good result, which is why we have the Base Design group -- and existing groups like Marketing and Design will still be involved across the board.
Marketing and Design seem to have, indirectly, necessitated this change. Perhaps their goals need to be re-evaluated during this new process.
The three proposed products come from discussion at Flock, started by Stephen Gallagher (who is a Red Hat employee but also a Fedora community member for years), but those are basically just some broad needs that we saw. We're already promoting cloud to first-class-citizen in Fedora 20, and this is really just adding server to that. Stephen can talk more about how his thinking led him to suggsting this. As for who is in charge -- well, the structure says the Fedora Board and the elected members of FESCo. But this is and remains a community process. I've basically tried to absorb everything I hear from everyone in the community -- Red Hat and not -- and attemped to integrate it into a coherent plan, and then pushed to advance that plan. Sometimes not everyone agrees, and that means compromise, and there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes we're going to make wrong moves and have to correct, and there's also nothing wrong with that. It's absolutely true that I'm advocating for more flexibility in what and who can be included in Fedora, and in how we can do that. That doesn't mean I don't have respect for what we're doing now or how we got here. It means I think we can do that_and more_ and still all be Fedora.
I studied the discussions prior to the creation of these workgroups and I saw positive ideas. The problem I'm seeing now is that when those ideas are put in practice they don't appear to be as fruitful.
I appreciate your willingness to be open and to talk about your concerns -- that's how we get anyhere as a community. Does the above help things sit better?
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I feel slightly better today. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
