<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/11/2015 05:35 PM, Stephen
Gallagher wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1441992921.4559.20.camel@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To me (speaking as a user of Fedora, maintainer of Fedora software and
developer of both Fedora and upstream projects), the current situation
is not ideal. In many cases, we're holding so rigidly to the "no
bundling" policy that it is actively harmful to Fedora's Mission:
"The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and
open source software and content as a collaborative community." When
we aren't capable of shipping and working with upstreams that <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>are<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
advancing the FOSS world, we are failing in our mission to be a leader
in that space.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Of whom are you speaking of that advances the FOSS world so dearly ?<br>
<br>
Why does you as user of Fedora, maintainer of Fedora software and
developer of both Fedora ( not sure what developer of Fedora is
supposed to mean unless you have been developing for the projects
support systems ) and upstream projects, taking their point of view
of that argument, claiming that the community cannot work with
upstream community(s) and should change it's shape ( the same
community it's members have for the past 10 years argued and
convinced people to do the opposite of what you now propose ) to
suit their needs since it's them who are unwilling to un-bundle
their application or application stack?<br>
<br>
And arguably Fedora already has more software than people to
maintain it so ( continuing ) being without few unwilling to
un-bundle upstreams would only do the distribution more good than
harm.<br>
<br>
JBG<br>
</body>
</html>