back to the "incubator brand" discussion: reviving Playground

[Matthew Miller]

Okay, so, after talking with a number of people and thinking for a
while, I think we should go ahead with creating a label that people can
use for things which are done in Fedora, in line with Fedora's basic
mission and values — but not necessarily perfect, and not necessarily
up to our generally high standards all around. See
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
t.org/message/UMUXRADSRXI3WPKSKQGLYGHJFCBG53QO/ 

I remembered the idea I pitched at DevConf several years ago: Fedora
Playground.* This was initially to be a repository for "ugly" RPMs, but
in thinking about it now, I figure: why not make it wider than that (as
a lot of innovation is going to be happening in areas outside of RPM,
anyway)? Let's promote the term as a label for anything new, crazy, pr
exciting that we want to let under our umbrella without diluting our
reputation for high standards.

Unless anyone has objections, I'll create some short descriptive
documentation (which may also contain references to how to get started
easily — like, how to get a Fedora infra cloud instance, etc.), and ask
Fedora Design to make a logo.



* I don't remember if I invented this or if I picked it up from
someone. Let me know if it was you. :)


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 09/23/2016 07:42 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  * I don't remember if I invented this or if I picked it up from
>  someone. Let me know if it was you. :)
>   
This came out of the first Flock from that brainstorming session that eventually
became the three Editions. I don't remember who first proposed it, but it was
one that rapidly gained traction.

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 09/23/2016 07:42 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > * I don't remember if I invented this or if I picked it up from
> > someone. Let me know if it was you. :)
> >
>
>  This came out of the first Flock from that brainstorming session that eventually
>  became the three Editions. I don't remember who first proposed it, but it was
>  one that rapidly gained traction. 
We need to revisit why it ultimately stalled then.  I think Matthew's
plans on documentation and purpose will help, but if it had traction
before and then fizzled out we need to avoid repeating that mistake
again.

josh

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 23 September 2016 at 09:08, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > On 09/23/2016 07:42 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >> * I don't remember if I invented this or if I picked it up from
> >> someone. Let me know if it was you. :)
> >>
> >
> > This came out of the first Flock from that brainstorming session that eventually
> > became the three Editions. I don't remember who first proposed it, but it was
> > one that rapidly gained traction.
>
>  We need to revisit why it ultimately stalled then.  I think Matthew's
>  plans on documentation and purpose will help, but if it had traction
>  before and then fizzled out we need to avoid repeating that mistake
>  again.
>  
If I remember it fizzed out on the following:

* Some people accused it of making Fedora Extras vs Core again. This
derailed a couple of conversations as old wars from 10+ years ago came
up.
* Some people felt it wasn't focused enough to get results so the
second round was Editions which was more focused.
* How was it going to be built? Koji has limitations on how it can
'split things up' and Copr was still at incubation levels of
development.

>  josh
>  _______________________________________________
>  council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 09:08:29AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  We need to revisit why it ultimately stalled then.  I think
> Matthew's
>  plans on documentation and purpose will help, but if it had traction
>  before and then fizzled out we need to avoid repeating that mistake
>  again. 
Before, it was going to be specifically an RPM repository with more
relaxed packaging guidelines. That stalled because of the stuff Smooge
said. With COPR as successful as it is, I don't think we really need
that unified repository anyway. This incarnation is a lot more
lightweight — it isn't a specific service or anything; it's a brand.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader