Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 26 March 2014 10:57, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 March 2014 10:11, Matthias Clasen <mclasen at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > Could a unified consensus of what is wanted in products please be
> presented
> > by the Board to potential groups? Round 1 seems to have been "Here use
> these
> > accepted PRD's and communication as a guideline for what we want." Round
> 2
> > seems to be "Don't use these accepted PRD's and communication as a
> guideline
> > of what we want."
>
> I asked FESCo to open a ticket to get the Board to weigh in on this
> product request.  (HINT FESCO.)
>
>
> I realize that this new all around and 'We know what we like when we
> finally
> > see it." but  a little help might make this not a daily exercise of
> > frustration.
>
> I think your Round 2 paraphrasing is a major oversimplification.
>

Of course it is. So was my paraphrasing of Round 1. However that is my gut
reaction from an outside viewpoint (I am not 'for' or 'against' the Plasma
product.)

Unless it is clear that there needs to be clear and noticeable
differentiation in Request for Proposals you will end up with Cookie
Cutting a lot. Because way too much of how we handle stuff is about cookie
cutting (packaging, file layout, etc etc because it needs to be or we would
die in complexity). In fact the norm outside of this set is that you want
or have to cookie cutter your Request for Proposals or you are going to be
filtered out immediately. Thus when you want unique, clearly differentiated
proposals you must say so or you are going to end up with the same proposal
every time with maybe someone using a thesaurus to change out some of the
words.



> Simply copying an existing product and changing a few things to make a
> similar product doesn't mean it's magically a product.  It is not at
> all unreasonable to expect noticeable differentiation in new product
> proposals.
>
> The KDE Plasma Product proposal might get there very quickly, but as
> it is written today it isn't clear to everyone exactly why it's
> different/needed.
>
> josh
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20140326/7b69f2d4/attachment-0001.html>