Fedora Board Strategic Working Group

[Jon Stanley]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are potential issues.  For instance, when the Desktop spin wanted to
> move to PolicyKit-1.0 and said that they'd veto a PoicyKit-compat package to
> allow KDE applications to work.  Or when zope was dropped from the
> repositories because it wasn't ported to python2.5 and we didn't want to
> have a python-2.4 compat package.  There have also been times when certain
> compilation options on one package were needed to allow other packages to
> function but, because of the dependencies that the compilation options
> brought in, that package didn't want to do so.

Good points - but where and how do we draw the line between something
that's acceptable to be called Fedora and something that is not?
Currently, once the Board gives tm approval to the spin, that spin has
great latitude as to what to ship in future releases, within the
constraints of being from the Everything repo and in general keeping
with the nature of the spin.

Certainly we wouldn't want things from rpmfusion in a Fedora branded
spin due to the liability concerns, etc.