On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 14:53 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> Jiri Eischmann (eischmann@xxxxxxxxxx) said: >> > > That being said, as we go forward as Fedora.NEXT, we start to >> > > see more >> > > clearly defined divisions between Products, Spins and Remixes. >> > > Since >> > > these discussions needed to happen, we (FESCo) felt it was >> > > best to try >> > > to move the conversation public. >> > > >> > > >> > > Part of the problem I have with this discussion other than the >> > > alarmist subject is that we are discussing the "fate of spins" before >> > > even coming out with concrete products out of the fedora.next >> > > proposals. That seems premature. >> > >> > +1 >> > I cannot agree more. We still don't have (at least I don't) have a clear >> > idea how basics of Fedora.NEXT will look. So this discussion is really >> > kinda premature. We should clearly define the products first, then we >> > can discuss spins and the border between them and remixes. From bottom >> > up please :) >> >> Blame me, I filed the original ticket. My concern was that we're (obviously) >> doing work in the Fedora.next space around: >> >> 1) the three products (workstation, server, cloud) >> 2) the base, which lives under them in some manner >> 3) environments & stacks, which can live on top of them >> >> First, I'm making the assumption that those three products are not the >> end-all/be-all of what Fedora can ever be. So we should have a defined >> process for how new products can be formed. And that can tie into some >> things that are now spins, if they want to go that route. >> >> Second, as we design how we build and ship all of those things above, it >> stands to reason that implementation choices made there have the possibility >> of breaking spins as they exist now. That shouldn't happen in a complete >> vacuum without warning, so it's worth discussing where things that are spins >> now fit into that process. > > Looked at that way it's obviously an important question to answer > indeed. > > I've written two posts on this topic and ripped them up for being > excessively negative, but let me try one more time: > > I think part of the worry is the tension between having a product which > is clearly focused around the GNOME desktop (please, can we just agree > on this? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I don't think the 'but we > haven't picked a desktop!' hedge is contributing to the clarity of > discussion: it is patently obvious that Workstation is going to be > GNOME), and what that means for all the other desktop spins. I'll agree that it's the most likely outcome, sure. I still think there's value in not just assuming things though, and actually going through the process/discussion. Saying something is official before it's official is stupid. > If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora - > which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a > Product-based conception of Fedora? > > We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an LXDE Product, > but...at that point haven't we just re-invented spins? It doesn't seem > to quite work with the Product conception. Agreed. As I said in my reply to John, there's a larger branding conversation to be had. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
