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
So are we skipping a gnome release?
by Elad Alfassa
GNOME 3.12 is due to be released in March, but as I understood there won't
be another Fedora release before August. So what's the plan? Are we going
to skip GNOME 3.12 entirely? I would much rather if we could (for a lack of
a better term) ignore the fedora package update guidelines and provide 3.12
for F20 when it's released.
--
-Elad Alfassa.
9 years, 9 months
Underlying DE for the Workstation product
by Josh Boyer
Hi All,
Since everyone else seems to be shy about kicking off some of the
threads for the next steps, I'll get this one going and get it out of
the way.
We need to settle on an underlying DE for the Workstation product.
The two major DEs in the Linux space are GNOME and KDE. Fedora has
spins for MATE, XFCE, and one other (I think). I've gathered that
there's a lot of assumption, both in the broader community and within
the WG, that Workstation will continue the Fedora trend and be based
on GNOME. I would even venture to say that is a fairly sane
assumption to make.
With that in mind, would the WG like to officially settle on using
GNOME as the underlying DE for Workstation?
I will be perfectly honest and say I have no overwhelming preference
here personally. My expertise extends to helping navigate through
Fedora process thus far, so I'm not sure I'd make a huge impact from
the technical side of things on whatever DE is picked.
josh
9 years, 10 months
FESCo Workstation PRD follow up questions
by Josh Boyer
Hi All,
As noted last week, FESCo deferred approval of the Workstation PRD
because they had some questions. Below are the questions they've come
up with thus far.
1) How does the Fedora Design Team play into the standardization work?
This is in reference to the "Work towards standardizing and unifying
the Linux desktop space" bullet. Specifically, the theme part IIRC.
2) What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for Workstation?
This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product. ISO,
live USB image, something else?
3) FESCo has said schedules should be kept in-sync for now. Should the
release schedule section still be included?
This is in reference to the "The working group will also be
responsible for defining release schedule while also taking the needs
of the other working groups into consideration and the resources
available from the Fedora infrastructure team." line.
We might consider just changing this to:
"The working group will also be responsible for on-going feedback and
suggestions on release schedules, based on collaboration with upstream
components, the other Working Groups and FESCo, and Fedora
Infrastructure."
4) What traditional policies and rules will be modified from the
existing Fedora policies/rules?
This is in reference to the section at the top of the PRD that says:
"Being a new product the Fedora Workstation will have its basic rules
and targets set through this PRD and thus there will be deviations
from some of the traditional policies or rules that the old Fedora
project followed. "
FESCo has clearly and repeatedly stated that it retains oversight to
all decisions all WGs make. It might be simpler to just remove this
line.
Lastly, we now know that the 3rd party repository item has been, at
best, severely limited in what is considered permissible. There were
comments on the ticket pertaining to this, but it was under discussion
by the Board so FESCo did not have a specific question for the PRD in
this regard. I would anticipate FESCo will push back on the existing
text under the 3rd party section. Perhaps we should reword this
before taking it back to FESCo?
josh
9 years, 10 months
Workstation PRD is approved
by Josh Boyer
Hi All,
FESCo approved the Workstation PRD after the recent edits I did.
Let's use this event as a springboard for starting to get some actual
work done. The next step is to start defining the product at a more
technical level. Items we need to determine from the start will be:
- The underlying DE
- The package collection we consider to be "Workstation"
- Impacts on rel-eng, QA, infrastructure
- What timeframe we think we can produce the first release in
etc.
So I encourage the WG members to start threads on all of these topics.
Let's get rolling.
josh
9 years, 10 months
Fedora board vote and way forward
by Christian Schaller
Hi everyone,
So as most of you might know the Fedora board voted against the proposal to allow 3rd party repos in the App installer last night.
While unfortunate I don't see it as the end of the road neither for the working group or the proposal itself. We should continue with
step 2 of the development process which is writing up a technical specification of the product. I will send out my a template/skeleton for what
I think needs to be included in the specification and we can take it from there, because regardless of what will be the long term outcome of the
boards current decision, we will need that specification.
Christian
9 years, 10 months
RE: Fedora board vote and way forward
by John Dulaney
Riddle me this:
If all you ever do is ignore the community you claim to be part of, then how are you
actually a part of the community? It seems to me that ignoring the rest of the Fedora
community is not the way to be part of that community.
Seriously, who do you think you are to ignore the decisions of the governing bodies of
that community? Such massive arrogance just baffles me; are you all seriously on such
and ego trip that you think that your way is the only way?
I admit that it confounds me as to why Fedora still considers Gnome to be a release
blocking desktop. I am going to propose that as a feature of Fedora 21 that Gnome
be dropped as a release blocker and be replaced with xfce. This move would also
dovetail nicely with ARM's status as a primary architecture, since the Gnome devs
don't see fit to even bother making their software work on ARM.
John.
9 years, 10 months
Re: So are we skipping a gnome release?
by Máirín Duffy
Why not do the opposite and provide the old one as a copr? Splitting up the release in the premiere os distribution of gnome seems very wrong. It'd be like serving a chef's signature dish but swapping out one of her planned sides by default. Present the chefs vision on the menu and allow diners to arrange for substitutions as needed with their waiter. Mmm yum as a waiter.
Sent from my phone, which is not an iphone.
-------- Original message --------
From: Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com>
Date:01/25/2014 6:54 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org>
Cc: Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop <desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Subject: Re: So are we skipping a gnome release?
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 16:42 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 21:02 +0200, Elad Alfassa wrote:
> > For the reference, here's the feature list
> > https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointEleven/Features
> >
> > In addition to that from what I've seen in blogs there are more
> > headerbar improvements, new gedit design, new nautilus design, and
> > probably more things I forgot to mention or aren't there yet but might
> > be added by the time it releases.
>
> Hm, Nautilus hasn't seen much more than bugfixes since 3.6. There's
> indeed a bold new design, but it has not been implemented and surely
> won't be in 3.12. Nobody's going to care about the Nautilus update.
>
> gedit will be a very major change, though. A lot of GNOME users will
> love it. Many will not.
How tied-in is gedit? Could we keep it at 3.10 and bump everything else
to 3.12, and maybe provide gedit 3.12 in a COPR for those who want it
(if we don't go with the all-of-3.12 in a COPR plan)?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
desktop mailing list
desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
9 years, 10 months
Board meeting discussing 3rd party repos
by Josh Boyer
FYI, there will be a Board meeting today at 19:00 UTC in
#fedora-meeting-1 on freenode to discuss the 3rd party repo ticket
that was submitted. Please join if you can.
josh
9 years, 10 months
[Proposal for Vote] Approve Draft 6 of the PRD
by Josh Boyer
Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft
of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for
reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing
votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
Please review if you haven't already and cast your vote. Comments are welcome.
josh
9 years, 10 months
