On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23/01/14 18:26, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> And I really wonder if Fedora.next is really backed by those community >>> contributors that are not involved in Fedora to deeply. One reason for >> >> >> I wonder the same. However, I don't think it's because we haven't >> necessarily asked in all of the usual places, or haven't tried to >> reach as many people as possible. There has been very little response >> from anyone and I can't tell if it's from indifference or from a lack >> of them even being aware. It's really hard to tell. > > > Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing seemed > to be a fait accompli such that there seemed to be little point doing > anything other than sitting back and seeing what happened. > > You know, the way one minute it was just a suggestion from one member of the > community and the next minute it was all decided and people were busy > forming working groups to sort out the details. Apparently that miraculous > transition happened at Flock, but for anybody that wasn't there it was as if > it was a god given edict that had been handed down on tablets of stone that > Fedora.next was happening and we should all just be good little children and > get on with it. There _was_ a lot that was discussed and presented at Flock. It's kind of the purpose of Flock (and FUDCon before that). Get people together to have big discussions in a high bandwith fashion. And yes, that can mean that those not in attendance are left to catch up a bit (though at least with Flock we tried to stream all the sessions to help with that). However, it wasn't decided at Flock. It was presented after Flock to FESCo, in the normal, online FESCo meetings. It went further from there to the Board via the usual channels. All of this was done as any other proposal would normally be handled. Perhaps the only unusual thing was the relative lack of debate and delay. > Even the formation of the working groups was odd - the original decision to > form them, as I read it, was that they were to explore the idea of doing > these three streams but within days it seemed that the question was no > longer whether to do them but rather how to do them. I can see how that would be confusing. I always understood it to be "these WGs will be formed and they will be tasked with figuring out how to create their respective products". Perhaps some lack of clarity in the proposal? >>> That's why I got the feeing a lot of contributors are simply waiting >>> for more concrete details to emerge before deciding what to make of >>> Fedora.next; or they simply at all don't care to much what the higher >>> ups do, as getting involved on that level can cost quite a lot of time >>> and can be frustrating (that's not a complaint, that's simply how it >>> is often; wasn't much different in my days, but noticed that more when >>> I wasn't that active an more myself). >> >> >> If they are waiting, what are they waiting for? If they don't care, >> and they just want to maintain a package or 30 packages, is there >> anything that you see in Fedora.next that would prevent them from >> doing that? There will always be varied level of participation, and I >> think we need to have a development model that encourages that and >> allows for growth. I don't think Fedora.next gets in the way of that, >> but I would love to have other opinions. > > > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor > hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and > single source and mechanism for installing packages. I haven't seen anything from any WG that would suggest a deviation from RPM packaging guidelines or using separate repositories. It is a valid concern and one we need to keep an eye on. > The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something that > bother me at all, as they are to my mind largely irrelevant for anybody > other than a new user. When I bring a new machine up I just want to get a > base OS on and access to the package repository and what packages are > installed by default doesn't really bother me. So... Fedora.next is essentially irrelevant to you? That's OK, it doesn't have to be relevant to everyone. And meeting the needs of existing users is definitely something that should be taken into account. Would you use e.g. Workstation as it's the most equivalent to the default Fedora install today? (I realize it's difficult to say for sure, given nothing actually exist yet so please allow a little latitude in the question.) josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
