[..] 

3 out of 5 candidates as most important feature which seems they want to push forward encircles Modularity.

Doesn't matter that rpm never been designed in mind to handle cohabitation packages in different variants.

What now Modularity offers is +1.5y behind original schedule and still in most of the cases it does not work.  

No one points on things like discussion on:

- common specs coding style

- cutting number of %iffings (and use instead SCM branches which git offers)

- cutting legacy tails like still using tons of scriptlets which can be easily cleaned of remove dependencies on initscripts and maaany more like this which could make at least @core solid fundamentals other features

- cutting number of dependencies (how many years ago was first discussion about use --as-needed in linker options?)

- caring about quite basic security (look decision about add ~/.local/bin to the $PATH and complete kind of "desinteressement" about remove /usr/local/{bin,sbin} from already used $PATH which widely opens hell gates for malwares).

Second most important goal on which candidates are focused is how internal Fedora infrastructure works.

No one of the candidates seems is aware that people are leaving Fedora boat (look on distrowatch.com or https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all and few other similars stats) not because Modularity still doesn't work (and will never work as no one will not change some fundamental bits in rpm). Most of the candidates seems are completely unaware that end users of they work (binary packages) simple don't care about how all Fedora stuff is build but HOW IT WORKS.

On top of this more and more decisions in Fedora seems are made in less and less transparent and well technically justified way.

Personally I don't see any GoodEnough(tm) candidate on which I can vote .. candidate with descent own expertise of what is now Fedora Achilles heel .. sad :(

kloczek

--