Request: please consider clarifying the project's position on Spins

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Montag, den 06.12.2010, 18:16 -0600 schrieb Mike McGrath:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> 
> > Am Samstag, den 04.12.2010, 22:37 -0500 schrieb Greg DeKoenigsberg:
> > >
> > > Spins folks: what steps would *you* be satisfied with?  Come with
> > > proposals.
> >
> > I think I already mentioned some things a couple of times in this
> > thread:
> >       * Allow the spins to define their own target audience.
> >       * Allow the spins to ship the software they need for their use
> >         case.
> 
> Another way to word this is "Let all spins fork Fedora and then let them
> continue to use the Fedora name"

Hi Mike

why do you think it's forking?

With spins one distribution can serve different target audiences. In
fact we are already, look at https://fedoraproject.org/using/#interviews
We are featuring Steve, the "Information Security Analyst" but also
Thomas, the "doting Dad". The problem however is that the secirity
analyst is not allowed to use a security analysis tool in Fedora. This
problem could be solved but it has nothing to do with forking.

Forking is like in *buntu, where packages from Xubuntu or Kubuntu are
from different repos and not compatible with Ubuntu. I'm sure we all
agree that this is not the way to go.

> >       * Do not block spins or alike with the TLA.
> 
> This isn't a choice.  This is a legal construct.

I did not say we should get rid of the TLA as a requirement of a spin, I
just want it to not be abused.

With "block" I meant the delay of the multi desktop DVD for weeks. The
individual spins it contained were already approved, the only thing that
was not was a 20 line grub.conf. Do you think this qualifies as a
contribution that needs trademark approval? If so, the TLA is not a
legal construct but the swiss army knife to cut everything the board or
Red Hat doesn't want, no matter if it is $program, extended livecycle
support or whatnot.

> >       * Give the spins some more (I'm not saying equal) support when it
> >         comes to resources that are shared among all groups.
> 
> "Give" implies that someone has something to give.  I don't think spins
> are a right.  I think they're a responsibility.  If there's not enough
> interest for the spins to get the resources they need, then perhaps
> there's not enough reason for that spin to exist.
> 
> >       * Make sure groups don't make progress on the account of others.
> >         It is not acceptable if one group continuously makes a change
> >         that breaks several other spins/programs/desktops.
> 
> This bullet point conflicts with your first and second bullet points.

How that? If Xfce or LXDE are to define their own target audience, say
people who are running old hardware and cannot afford to run KDE or
GNOME, we are not breaking these DEs, are we? But on the other hand
GNOME stuff often breaks other desktops, just think of the recent
libnotify 0.7.0.

Or if we include sylpheed or claws as a lightweight mail client, we are
not breaking evolution or kmail, are we? See the difference?

> >       * Allow the Desktop Live-CD to be called "GNOME Live-CD" or
> >         similar in some contexts. I'm not saying that we should get rid
> >         of GNOME as the default selection and I think the download
> >         options are already very good designed, but in some contexts it
> >         must be allowed to call GNOME GNOME, e.g. in the boot menu for
> >         the multi desktop DVD. The sleeves of the Live-CD should mention
> >         it is GNOME because the term "Desktop Live Media" is the #1 FAQ
> >         on events.
> >       * When it comes to decision making, make the decisions in time.
> >       * Listen to the spin community or the community in general and
> >         consult them before making decisions.
> >
> > I think these were a good start.
> >
> 
> More and more I think that spins do more harm then good.  I know I'm in
> the minority on that.  I just think it's a hard pill to swallow.  In this
> area, our reach far exceeds our grasp and has for several releases now.

If we
      * have the popular DE on the DVD
      * have an installer where I can select a DE with one click and
        don't have go through all groups and unselect the GNOME
        components
      * manage to cut down the dependency jungle to a reasonable extent
I'm the first one to abandon my desktop spins.

Nevertheless I think that specialized things like FEL, the Design Suite
or the Security Spin all serve a valid use case. One could certainly
investigate if design and FEL could be a comps group, since they use the
default desktop anyway, but I think a Security Spin has a unique use
case.

Site note: The Security Spin is meant as a Live-CD and there hardly is
any use installing it. Nevertheless it needs to contain the installer
because of the spin guidelines. Don't know who is responsible for this
guideline.

Regards,
Christoph