<p dir="ltr"><br>
Il 21/mar/2014 12:59 "Matthew Miller" <<a href="mailto:mattdm@fedoraproject.org">mattdm@fedoraproject.org</a>> ha scritto:<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:28:26AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:<br>
> > I agree with Jaroslav. I was looking forward to have a fourth<br>
> > product to those three. KDE can help define what is needed for new<br>
> > product, what must be done by all teams, how much work it will be<br>
> > ... I guess we should speak more about addition of new product and<br>
> > don't kill the idea at the start.<br>
><br>
> Like I said, I'm skeptical, but listening. :)<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <<a href="mailto:mattdm@fedoraproject.org">mattdm@fedoraproject.org</a>></p>
<p dir="ltr">I think the same, if all spins become products we can also keep the actual way. Fedora.next is a very good idea and I'm sure it will have success, but it needs to follow his strategy with three different products, not having 2 different ones and *n* workstation-similar-products, IMHO.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I don't think spins are not useful, but they could be under the wing of Workstation as a sub-product perhaps.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This is how I understand and think about fedora.next, so proliferation of products is not really what it should be in my eyes.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Greetings<br>
Robert Mayr<br>
(robyduck)</p>