Fedora Board Recap 2010-10-25

[Josh Boyer]

2010/10/27 Máirín Duffy <duffy at fedoraproject.org>:
>> Accordingly, this spin is not approved for F14 due to the lack of
>> approval from all parties and failure to meet the criteria.  Is that
>> an accurate description of what the Board decided?  If so, why
>> couldn't the Board just clearly state that?
>
> See this line:
>
> "(Jared) If it's built on our infrastructure, if $STRAWMAN is okay
> helping getting it built & hosted on our infrastructure.... in this
> specific case if they meet all requirements outside of schedule/timing,
> then yes they can move forward."
>
> So the Board basically doesn't have issues with this media moving
> forward as long as it follows the requirements outside of the waived
> scheduling/timing requirements. So it is approved if it meets those
> requirements - and there's a possibility someone on releng could agree
> to help it out.

I doubt that.  Jesse is swamped.  I've seen no interest from Dennis or
Bill.  Rex has been in the Board meetings, but I've seen nothing on
actually producing from him.  I'm not exactly an active member of
rel-eng these days so I won't be doing it.  (I asked in the previous
thread what tools and how and never saw an answer anyway.)

So no, I don't think rel-eng has agreed to this at all and I don't
realistically think there is a possibility they will for F-14.  I
guess since the Board punted to rel-eng, they get to be the bad guys
instead of the Board actually making a definitive statement and not
allowing hand-wavy exceptions to it's newly invented requirements.
I'm ok with being the bad guy.  Others might view that as unfair to
rel-eng.

>> As an aside, I strenuously object to the requirement of "Fedora themed
>> boot screens, or not boot screens at all."  There is no rationale
>> listed for this requirement and it prevents spins from offering a spin
>> influenced variant of artwork (think the default screen, but with a
>> KDE logo).  Most importantly, it precludes the use of the generic
>> artwork that is freely available, thereby preventing the proliferation
>> of his AWESOME BEEFY-NESS, the Hot Dog Guy.  I find this a travesty.
>> I strongly urge the Board to reconsider this requirement, with
>> preference on removing it entirely.
>
> I'm a little confused about this though. Anybody is free, of course, to
> produce awesome royal beefy-ness spins, but is it appropriate for those
> to be produced using funding provided by Fedora to promote Fedora?

Yes.  Why wouldn't it be appropriate?

josh