On Sat, 2005-12-03 at 01:08 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 20:57 -0600, Patrick Barnes wrote: > > My first instinct is to vote for #2. I like the long-term goal of the > > Fedora Project becoming more autonomous and independent -- or at least > > giving that appearance. I know it would take a great deal of effort to > > move everything over, and I'm not sure we have the resources to do it at > > this time. Perhaps when there is more muscle behind fedoraproject.org, > > we can pull this off. I'm willing to go with #1 in the meantime. > > Something else that we might hear is that a difficult move is best to do > > now and get it over with, and I would normally agree, but I'm not > > convinced that we are really in the best position to pull it off right > > now. How about we go with #1 right now and, if the demand is present, > > we review this in 6 months? > > My question on this is why wouldn't RH be allowed to donate this > service? Why is it viewed to be 'closed' or at least not 'open' if RH > helps out? RH is some how excluded from contributing because it is a > commercial corporation? I don't think it matters who is providing the back-end services. Actually, I appreciate the quality of the Red Hat service in this area. Remaining @ redhat.com for formal Fedora Web services is like having a Geocities website. OK, that's a little harsh. It just makes it appear that Fedora is forever a stepchild of Red Hat; has to live in the same house, but different last name. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Content Services Fedora Documentation Project http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
