Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
> > The KDE SIG would like public comment and feedback on a new Fedora.next
> > product proposal:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Plasma_Product
> >
> > mostly on the base proposal, Governance and PRD bits.  Other stuff like
> > Technical spec are still undergoing polish.
> 
> I went from pretty excited initially to a bit disappointed that the
> PRD seems to mostly be snipped from the Workstation PRD. I was hoping
> for something with a more original vision I guess. So my first comment
> really is meant to encourage the Fedora Plasma Product to create more
> separation between itself and the Workstation Product. Two products
> with a very similar vision I suspect will be a hard sell generally.

Well, I told Lukas, that it's sometimes too much Workstation copy-paste,
I did a few edits, we removed a lot of stuff as 3rd party software we're
not big fans etc. 

There's reason why it should be - in some sort, we want to be as close
to Workstation as possible but to target different audience.

> Two of the statements in the Workstation PRD that I objected to I see
> again in the Plasma PRD.
> 
> The section Packaging for Fedora Plasma ends with the sentence, "No
> software will be blocked from being packaged as long as it doesn't
> break any part of the core desktop system upon install." The word
> "packaged" here is pretty loaded and suggests we are going beyond just
> saying that the offensive package will be excluded from the Plasma
> product. Would "No software will be blocked from being available to a
> Plasma installation as long as it doesn't break any part of the core
> desktop system upon install," mean the same thing to you? Or maybe
> that sentence could just be dropped entirely. We welcome all sorts of
> additional software ... with no mention of some nebulous large hammer
> that will fall on software deemed offensive to some other unspecified
> set of software?

Good point, we will drop it.

> The section Other tasks for working group concludes with "The working
> group will also regularly meet with a designated representative of Red
> Hat to discuss how Red Hats product and development plans will affect
> the Fedora product development and resource allocation." This still
> raises questions. Who is designating the representative of Red Hat?
> Common sense says it would be a person designated by Red Hat to
> discuss these things with the working group but that wasn't what I was
> told when it came to the Workstation PRD. So what does this mean in
> the Plasma PRD. In both cases, although more so in this case, it just
> seems odd to make a statement like this limited to a representative of
> Red Hat. Can't it simply be generalized to express your interest in
> collaborating closely with other strategic partners?

I'm ok with this "other strategic partners" wording.

Jaroslav

> John
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board