On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 02:36:14AM +0200, Lars Seipel wrote:
My initial reaction was similar to Neal's. What about inserting
and open source" just after the "innovative"?
I remember we talked about this a little bit at the Council meeting.
There is certainly no intent to de-emphasize software freedom in the
project overall. We wanted the statement to be short (we came up with
25 words), and we felt like it was better to emphasize the Freedom
foundation and not necessary to spell it out in the mission.
However, if there's strong community consensus that it really needs to
be there, I'm open to the possibility.
Or maybe can find something more meaningful in place of the
> - Lights up hardware, clouds, and containers — We want to be
> specific about a primary focus as an enablement layer for
> environments people want to use.
While I don't have any specific issue with that part, it somehow feels
out of place for a mission statement. We just learnt that those should
be good for something like 6½ years. That's plenty of time for new
terminology to emerge that might make the mission look dated. A more
timeless "systems" (someone have a better word here?) might be more
We were aiming for about 5 years, not necessarily 6½ again. It is
difficult to make predictions, especially about the future, but I'm
pretty confident that this will remain relevant over that time. And,
actually, if something *really* disruptive comes along, I think it's
better for us to actually need to reevaluate completely.
Fedora Project Leader