On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:52 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 11:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > There were a number of people interested in helping with reviving the > > Server WG, myself included. But we don't know how to have that move > > forward. We've never really had a situation like this before... > > > I'd start with staging a takeover of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server > > It looks like there are no meeting logs in the last two years, so I > don't think you'll get much pushback. > > I talked to sgallagh before posing this question, so I don't expect > you'll get any pushback. If anything, you'll probably make people > happy. :-) > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:30 PM Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure it's really warranted, to be honest. A counterpoint is > > that you can consider Server to be sort of dormant *because it works*. > > Is "it still works" sufficient to keep a deliverable at the forefront? > Obviously we want what we ship to work, whether it's an Edition or > bex's Llama Herder Lab. But what is Server doing to move the state of > the art forward? Server is a slightly different case in that generally > you don't want servers to be too adventurous, but if it's in statis, > should it be a flagship? > > Like I said above, the Server WG appears to be in zombie state for at > least the last two years. Is Fedora Server doing what it should be > doing now, or is it doing what it should have done two years ago? IMO, yes. I am a silent consumer of it. It provides a non-graphical default Fedora installation that just works as a target for various automated deployments (e.g., qemu + ansible). For both work and non-work deployments of Fedora on VMs, Fedora Server is my default mechanism to do so (whether on local libvirt or remote cloud deployments). I'm not sure it really needs much care and feeding -- a boring packaging of Fedora with some bare necessities and without any graphical tooling doesn't need much management or steering. Changing what is shipped in the base Server distribution frequently is an anti-feature. That I haven't had any Server-specific bugs or issues is a good thing. > > Of course, we can keep publishing Server images and providing those > > capabilities without calling it an Edition, but...I'm not sure it just > > being sort of quiet and undramatic necessarily merits that, especially > > if we don't have clear replacements for its capabilities yet. > > I'm certainly not advocating we drop Server entirely. But we should > evaluate its place in Fedora, particularly if there's no one providing > active care and feeding. I'd much rather see the Server WG come back > to life and keep it as an Edition. The care and feeding of a Fedora Server edition, IMO, shouldn't come from changes in content curation, but all the packagers involved in maintenance of packages shipped by the edition. My 2c. Alex > > -- > Ben Cotton > He / Him / His > Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream > Red Hat > TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
