Board/FESCo mission/vision FAD

Jon Masters jonathan at jonmasters.org
Wed Sep 1 04:44:56 UTC 2010


On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 00:39 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jon Masters (jonathan at jonmasters.org) said: 
> > > > I would really like to see a "Plumbing" gathering at LPC or a FUDCon, or
> > > > similar, in which those of us who touch the bowels of the system can
> > > > talk strategy for the next 1/2 releases. It's ok to do stuff like
> > > > systemd if it's deemed useful, but let's talk about it first and get
> > > > input from the different folks involved in integration of this stuff.
> > > 
> > > Why is having a separate cabal better than working with upstream
> > > to begin with?
> > 
> > Because there's a difference between upstream and distribution
> > coherence?
> 
> Not if you're doing it right.

With all due respect Bill, I strongly disagree. In a perfect world,
everything would just slot into place, but that isn't reality. In
reality, there are weird interaction problems, different versions of
packages not playing together (we use dracut, they use whatever), or
other distribution-isms. Not everyone upstream is using Fedora :)

> > Upstream for any given package doesn't care about how random
> > other packages interact other than the ones perhaps they play with.
> 
> "Hi, we decided in our distro we're not taking the next 2.6.37
> kernel b/c it's WEIRD, and we're not taking it until you revert THAT
> PATCH OVER THERE."  How would that make us sound?

I didn't say that. But if some feature X that affecting plumbing had to
be discussed by a team representing each of the core pieces impacted, we
could bring that up and work out a plan together, not in silos.

> To be honest, I would think the high-level planning of features for
> a few releases down the line wouldn't even start at the plumbing levels
> in many cases.

I agree. I would like a utopia where Fedora leadership sends down very
strong goals and makes the vision very clear for what will be happening
in a particular release, and that would be followed by judicious use of
the word "no" on many separate occasions.

Jon.




More information about the advisory-board mailing list