On 11/28/2012 02:03 AM, inode0 wrote:

One thing I noticed in this announcement as well as something similar
in a fairly recent Red Hat blog post is some emphasis on Fedora's role
as a place where new technology is developed and tested for possible
inclusion in Red Hat's commercial products. While that is true and it
is a motivation for many Fedora contributors it isn't the universal
view of Fedora even within Fedora. Fedora is different things to
different people and unfortunately one of the persistent, although
perhaps waning, issues we deal with promoting Fedora is people put off
by the impression that is really all Fedora is.

Yes exactly I for one am one of those that have been trying to shave of that "development version of RHEL or development desktop version for Red Hat" through out the years because I know first hand that users have chosen to stay away from using Fedora because of the "development label" including upstream that have chosen to ship their own packages in their own internal repo simply because they thought nobody would be using their application. ( which in this particular case is server related ) which is why my project vision is that we eventually evolve into releasing and maintaining one LTS release and one rolling release which users that want bleeding edge would upgrade every 6 or 8 months or so ( which kinda is not implementable until we have something like btrfs ).

 So I'd like to see
some care around dealing with this. I don't want to discourage Red Hat
from saying *this* is why Fedora is important to us entirely. I think
that message is important too. But maybe we can boilerplate something
that also emphasizes other reasons people love and contribute to
Fedora so it is *one of many* reasons Fedora is important.

Yes you nailed it *one of many* which is why we cant have a single label that applies to the distribution in whole or single de to push on the front, or a single server solution etc.

JBG