Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 14:29 -0500, inode0 wrote:
> 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.

I agree with this paragraph.

A product should really have a distinct use case (or cases) that it is
trying to address. Something like 'Fedora media center' or 'Fedora
kiosk' would be an excellent addition to the product lineup. If we take
the workstation specs and just s/G/K/ or s/G/X/, we end up back in the
place we were with spins - too much choice, and too little
differentiation.


> 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?
> 
> 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?

Oh, I hadn't seen your concerns. I'll look into clarifying these points
in the Workstation spec.