-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 23.01.2014 22:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis
> On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
>> else should be included? What different directions should we
>> consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome than ever in
>> the coming year?
> Okay, I'll bite (after thinking whether writing this mail is
> worth it):
Hey Thorsten! Glad you did. ;)
> I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it.
> more and more I tend to the latter position and wonder if it
> might be wise to slow things down: Do one more Fedora release the
> old style in round about June; that would give us more time to
> better discuss and work out Fedora.next and get contributors
> involved better in the planing.
This is not practical. Lots of people are thinking about a
fedora.next, qa folks are coding away, lots of people who normally
would be working on the next release are not. If we tell them to
stop all that and go back to normal, we could, but then fedora.next
will likely never ever happen.
Understood, but OTOH it makes me wonder if Fedora.next is a step to
big and needs to be split or something.
[...] The current problem I have with Fedora.next is that it's
abstract. I understand that people who like PRD's and TPS want high
level descriptions of what we want to do with goals and visions and
such, and thats great. However, I'm a technical person. I like
concrete plans and pushing what we can do with the technology we
have at hand, or helping to make new technology to do what we want.
+1 you found really good words for what's a big part of the problem I
have with Fedora.next
We are now down to the point where groups have written up their
PRD documents, and can get down to details. So, I am hopeful in the
next month or so we will gain a lot more interest in fedora.next
and more feedback as concrete deliverables are discussed, etc.
That is my hope at least... we will see. :)
Yeah, we'll see :D
Your words otoh scratched another thought in my head: The PRD
documents (and some of the other docs around Fedora.next) in great
length talk a lot about "how" they want to do something. That up to a
point is needed obviously. But sometimes I miss a few introductions
words on the "why" we want all of that and how it's supposed to make
Fedora better. But that's obviously meta/abstract again, which I
myself criticized earlier. So maybe it's simply this ted talk that
stuck in my head too much:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----