"Fedora" in a domain name

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:28:14AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:40:10AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:08:46PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> >On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:28:22PM -0500, Scott Williams wrote:
>> >> Rahul,
>> >> 
>> >> Jesse Keating still owns fedoralegacy.org and so far has requested we
>> >> not use that name.  Tentatively looking at FedoraForever.org.  We
>> >> would like to use Fedora in the domain name since we will be packaging
>> >> security updates explicitly for EOL Fedora versions.  I have also
>> >> looked into working under Fedora Unity, but at this time we will
>> >> remain separate projects.
>> >
>> >Any reason why a separate domain name is needed?  Why not something
>> >like eol-security.fedoraproject.org for a server name, which FI can
>> >redirect to your hosting service?
>> 
>> Because that has the implication that it's part of the fedora project,
>> which I don't think is the case here.  At least not yet.
>
>Yeah, but I tend to dislike the practice of forcing a new
>idea/subproject to have to distinguish (at a domain level) it's place
>in the Fedora universe.  Seems like it adds a lot of overhead to push
>past the status quo.
>
>Can't we, with website verbage, control the message we want end users
>to understand?  If not, is another domain really going to make that
>much of a difference in that message being understood?

We could try, but people hardly ever read that stuff.  My primary
concern is getting bugs/requests for packages in the main Fedora
bugzilla and lists for stuff that is EOL.  We have an EOL for a reason.

That's possible whether a new domain is created or not.  I'm just
wondering if it would exacerbate the situation even more if it was
just a sub-domain of fp.o

josh