On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Greg DeKoenigsberg
<greg.dekoenigsberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Subhendu Ghosh <sghosh151@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The corollary to "innovative platform" needs to be something like "supports an ecosystem". Without that, the platform remains an island. With an ecosystem, it becomes part of a something bigger.
>
> +1 to Subhendu.

I don't disagree, but ecosystem is very broad. I can think of lots of
things we could claim are the ecosystem. Some of them would even be
accurate.

However, part of the utility of the platform is to provide a solid
base to help bootstrap new ecosystems on top of it that we haven't
even thought of yet. Are you suggesting we define the ecosystem in
the mission statement? If so, isn't that limiting possibilities?

If I look Raspberry Pi, BeagleBoard, most hardware systems these days - I would qualify them in the platform category. They can be used as-is, but they support an ecosystem of add-on that are not controlled by the platform. Ansible is another software example - a platform - but allows an ecosystem of add-ons in the form of playbooks available thru Galaxy and other means.

Fedora as an OS or as a Project as not really been good fostering an ecosystem of add-ons and embellishments. I think that we don't have to "define an ecosystem" but we should certainly note that the "platform should support an ecosystem"

Take today's LinuxKit announcement - is that driving platform or is that ecosystem? or both? How do you make batteries replaceable?

As we see hardware and software - we can ask if it belongs "in the platform"? If not (and that's ok) how does the platform still enable is utility and thus support the ecosystem thru mechanisms that are focused on self-service, ease of use, and discoverability.

-subhendu