Fedora.next Product Branding
by Ryan Lerch
*This is sent with my Fedora Design Team hat on*
With the creation of 3 products for Fedora, the Fedora Design Team
anticipates manynewquestions aroundFedora'sbrand. As the main caretakers
of the Fedora brand, weare going to have to figure these things out
within the next few months. For example, the Design Team is starting to
think about how to answer these types of questions:
• Should each product have its own logo? or
• Can you add our product to the Fedora website? or
• Can you make our product its own website? (How should we represent
these products on the website? Should we allow products to have their
own separate websites?)
To start off the rebranding discussion, the Fedora Design Teamhas4 basic
questions for each of the 3 product-focused working groups to answer:
(1) What problem does your product solve, in one sentence?
(2) Who is the target audience for your product, in one sentence?
(3) List at least 5 products that successfully target the same target
audience you are after.
(4) List at least 5 products that try to solve the same problem.
We are reaching out to each group individually to ask that you discuss
these questions and come back to us with answers by Wednesday, December
4th2013.
cheers,
ryanlerch
9 years, 6 months
Updated Fedora Workstation PRD draft
by Christian Schaller
Hi everyone,
First of all apologize for this taking so long, I ended up traveling
non-stop for some time visiting some of Red Hats desktop customers.
While not directly tied to the work of this working group I do hope to
take some of the lessons learned from those meetings with me into the
future work of the working group.
Anyway I tried editing the PRD a bit based on the feedback we got on the
first draft. I tried to make a few items a bit clearer and also to
include spelling fixes contributed and so on.
We probably want to do another WG meeting soon to discuss next steps.
Feel free to let me know if I forgot to include some important feedback
or if further clarifications are needed.
Christian
9 years, 10 months
Workstation PRD draft 5
by Christian Schaller
ok, so I tried updating the Mission statement part of the PRD to make it very clear that we want the core of the system to be usable and inviting to a wide segment of society by including the words
'We want to create a stable, integrated, polished and user friendly system that can appeal to a wide general audience, but with a special focus on providing a platform for development of server side and client applications.'
Hopefully that can address what seems to be concerns that having a developer focus implies that getting the basics right is not necessary anymore.
Christian
10 years
Fedora Workstation PRD draft 3
by Christian Schaller
Hi everyone,
Ok, wanted to send out a quick update which includes all the
sentence/spelling fixes people sent. I also tried clarifying the
integrated desktop experience item as Lukáš Tinkl suggested.
Only thing I haven't done here is reworked the goals listing as per
Ryan's suggestion as it would be a bigger job and I am not convinced the
end result would produce a 'better' text. That said I am open to
suggestions if someone wants to propose and alternate text/layout to
this section.
Christian
10 years
Fedora Workstation Desktop Environment Concept
by Alex G.S.
Hello list,
I'm a computer science major interested in Linux software engineering and
just beginning to learn programming so I'm use-case #1 and #2. Currently
out of all my peers I'm the only one using Linux as far as I know. Most
students and developers even those working on Linux oriented projects
either use Mac OS out of personal preference or Windows because it's the
default in most organizations and institutions of learning. If users
cannot naturally and effortlessly migrate to the Fedora Workstation from
Mac or Windows and find a "normal" environment they're used to, the product
will fail. The problem is that the vast majority of Linux desktops don't
meet the design standards set by the established commercial leaders.
Currently my favorite desktop environment is Gnome Shell and my second
favorite is Mate. Gnome Shell is "almost" there, nearly meets the modern
Mac OS level of quality end-users expect, and has an excellent technical
foundation, it just needs some simple layout modifications and changes to
menu behavior. I've put together a *.pdf document outlining my suggestions
and ideas outlining my suggestions in this regard, see the attached link.
Hopefully this can be useful to the working group and a provide a starting
point for a discussion about the default graphical user interface for the
Workstation product.
Document Link: http://goo.gl/0IzNgK
*this is a Google Documents link
Thank you for your time and attention!
Regards,
Alexander
10 years
FESCo release life cycle decision
by Josh Boyer
Hi All,
Today FESCo decided that any WG wanting to use a different lifecycle
for their product should note it along with supporting rationale in
the PRD. They also noted that WGs should not make the PRD depend on a
differing release cycle. The official ticket and decision is here:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1202#comment:12
We haven't discussed this specifically yet, but it is something to
keep in mind while we work towards a PRD for approval. It is unlikely
that the first release of Workstation will be able to differ here.
josh
10 years
Re: Draft v2 Workstation WG Governance Charter
by Josh Boyer
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> The charter is due this Friday, November 15. We have two comments
>>> from Jens on this draft, one for suggesting a voting timeframe of
>>> within a week of an official proposal, the other for possibly using
>>> trac for voting. I'm fine with the timeframe, and I don't care either
>>> way on trac or what I have in the draft below.
>>>
>>> Please review and either approve or make suggested changes.
>>
>> I've incorporated the changes suggested by Christoph and Jens and put
>> the draft on the wiki here:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Governance
>>
>> I plan to submit this to FESCo tomorrow (the due date). If you have
>> any other comments/suggestions, please speak now.
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1205
This was approved in today's FESCo meeting and I have made the small
changes on the wiki. Our first deliverable is now complete. Onto the
PRD.
josh
10 years
LISA conference, Fedora, and the sysadmin use case.
by Matthew Miller
Last week, I was at the Usenix LISA conference in Washington, DC. If you are
not familiar, LISA is "Large Installation System Administration", and this
is the premiere conference for professional sysadmins.
We had a Fedora booth and evening "birds of a feather" session, and I was
pleased by how popular and positive the response was. Almost everyone who I
spoke with Fedora in some capacity (or else apologetically said that they
run only RHEL). I think I had one Ubuntu user and a couple of FreeBSD
advocates come by. This was in contrast to LinuxCon, where people were
generally *positive*, but often ran other distributions or had run Fedora in
the past but didn't anymore. Here, even the people just coming by the booth
to get a sticker for the raffle usually talked about their use of Fedora
when I asked.
I would say that about a third of the people I spoke with ran Fedora on
servers only, another third on their desktop only, and another third with a
mix. It is very important for Fedora to continue to appeal to this group in
every capacity, including on the desktop. I didn't keep careful stats, but
there seemed to be a pretty even split between Gnome and other desktops.
There were two particular themes that I heard over and over about desktop in
particular:
- need for better multi-monitor support
- handling of many multiple terminal windows
And, not particular to desktop, the general theme of managing updates and
upgrades in a less overwhelming way.
I don't think any of those bullets are a surprise to anyone. Sysadmins as a
class generally aren't shy about their opinions on software, and while as
noted the response was generally positive (a couple of people noted how
good-looking the Fedora desktop is), there was a lot to say about the above.
One specific complaint I heard several times is that the overview just gives
a wall of rectangles -- I introduced those people to the Native Window
Placement extension. That's getting into the details, though.
The basic take-away was that this is, after all these years, a _really_
loyal base of Fedora desktop users. I *really* think it's worth our while to
listen to their needs and make their experience the best possible.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
10 years
Draft v2 Workstation WG Governance Charter
by Josh Boyer
Hi All,
Here's the second draft of the charter. I think I captured most of
the discussion to date, but there's always a chance I missed
something. Please read this over and provide any feedback you have.
Please pay particular attention to the (NOTE:) items.
Thanks.
josh
== Fedora Workstation WG Governance ==
This document describes the governing structure for the Fedora
Workstation Work Group.
=== Membership ===
The Fedora Workstation Work Group has nine voting members, with one
member selected by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee as the
liaison to FESCo.
The FESCo liaison is always a member of the decision making group for
the Work Group. The liaison is responsible for presenting the WG
decisions and summary of WG discussions to FESCo on a regular basis.
They will also take feedback or requirements from FESCo back to the
WG. The liaison is not required to be a FESCo member, but should be
able to regularly attend the FESCo meetings.
Members of the Work Group are chosen by the Work Group as seats become
available. In the event that a current member relinquishes their
seat, the Work Group will fill the seat by selecting a candidate and
approving by majority consensus. Eligible candidates must be in the
FPCA+1 group. The Work Group is highly encouraged to seek out
candidates that have been showing persistent and high quality
contribution to the Workstation product.
(NOTE: I believe this is a decent encapsulation of the discussion
we've had thus far. I've omitted term limits for now, but I'm open to
suggestions. The FPCA+1 requirement seems reasonable to me as we want
to make sure they're a Fedora contributor first and foremost.
Suggestions/questions welcome.)
=== Current Members ===
* Josh Boyer (FESCo Liaison) (jwb)
* Matthias Clasen (mclasen)
* Kalev Lember (kalev)
* Ryan Lerch (ryanlerch)
* Jens Petersen (juhp)
* Christian Schaller (cschalle)
* Owen Taylor (otaylor)
* Lukáš Tinkl (ltinkl)
* Christoph Wickert (cwickert)
=== Making Decisions ===
Because Fedora is a global project, members of the working group may
be distributed across multiple timezones. It may be possible to have a
real-time IRC meetings, but in general we will conduct business on
the mailing list.
Many of our decisions can be made through "lazy consensus";. Under
this model, an intended action is announced on the mailing list,
discussed, and in the absence of a group of dissenting contributors
within a few days, simply done.
For bigger issues, where there may be disagreement, or where there is
long-term impact, or where an action may not easily be undone, we
will put forth a formal proposal on the mailing list with a
"[Proposal for Vote] header in the email Subject: field. Working
group members can vote +1 to approve, -1 to disagree, or 0 to abstain;
five +1 votes are necessary for a measure to pass. Non-members may
comment on the item and (of course) discuss on the mailing list, but
are asked to refrain from putting votes on official proposal threads.
In the event that a live meeting is held in IRC to discuss an issue,
proposals will be done in much the same way. A member will put forth
an official proposal by prefixing a summary of such with "Proposal:"
and WG members will vote as above. Results will be recorded and
posted in any meeting minutes.
(NOTE: I chose option #2 from the previous draft for now. If you'd
like to see something different, please speak up. I don't believe
anyone commented on this section specifically.)
=== Changing these Rules ===
This document will be approved by consensus of the initial Working
Group members and approved by FESCo. After initial ratification, any
substantive changes can be approved by majority vote and sent to FESCo
for acceptance.
10 years
