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

[Mike McGrath]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 02:41 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > I think Mike was working on the assumption that you were asking for
> > spins to be allowed to include any packages they like (including ones
> > that don't meet Fedora's guidelines); I think that wasn't actually so
> > clear and probably isn't what you meant, but it might be best to
> > clarify: what exactly do you mean by 'allow the spins to ship the
> > software they need for their use case', and in what way is this not
> > currently the case?
> >
>
> I was also thinking he might want a different version of bash for every
> spin.  That just seems like a fork to me.
>

I should also make clear I'm not using fork as a pejorative here.

	-mIKE