<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Matthew Miller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mattdm@fedoraproject.org" target="_blank">mattdm@fedoraproject.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> This doesn't mean I'm against doing Big Exciting New Things in general<br><div class="im">
> or Fedora.next in particular, but I do want to stand up for the value of<br>
> just keeping your head down (hah, I know, Adam, practice what you<br>
> preach) and doing good, dull engineering work. With your pocket<br>
> protector firmly in place.<br>
<br>
</div>This is all very convincing. But you also sent me a convincing message the<br>
other week about Fedora's place on the innovation curve and, basically, the<br>
difficulty of doing all that good dull work while being innovative. Stop<br>
convincing me in different directions -- my head will fall off!<br>
<br>
Or, in seriousness, because I don't think they're *necessarily* in direct<br>
conflict, what do you think we should do about all of the above? Our mission<br>
and branding, including our foundations, tend to steer away from the dull<br>
and towards new shiny. In fact, whenever we do something that could be<br>
characterized as head-down plodding forward progress instead of a bold leap,<br>
we hear *quite a bit* of sarcasm about the four foundations in the online<br>
chatter.<br></blockquote><br></div>So I recently had to carefully reread the foundations, and I was surprised to find the "First" foundation is not nearly as focused on timing as is generally assumed:<br><br>> we provide the latest _in stable and robust_, useful, and powerful free software in our Fedora distribution.<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra">(emphasis mine)<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">So, "new shiny"? Yes, please. "Bold leap"? Uncertain. "Bleeding edge"? Definitely not.<br>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">(It could be argued that when the written from or the Foundations and their common understanding differs, it's the common understanding that is correct. I suppose the right way to go about it would be to dig out the archives of the discussions and Board minutes from that time to accurately understand the consensus of _that_ time, as opposed to the _current_ common understanding, which is, I think, primarily formed by the above-referenced sarcasm.)<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"> Mirek<br></div></div>