Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please

[inode0]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 06:42:49PM -0500, inode0 wrote:
>> Spins are disadvantaged, they always have been.
>
> Yeah, but that's something we can look at changing too, especially for the
> desktop spins.
>
>> So how would you view a hypothetical product proposal for a Fedora
>> Media Center Product? Should that be a spin? Should that be a "spin"
>> built from the Server Product? Is there a difference between a spin
>> and something built from a Product and how we present those to the
>> public?
>
> I think that could make sense as a product (although given the sad state of
> media formats and patents, I'm afraid it will remain hypothetical). The
> audience and use case is very different from the server target.

Ok.  I agree with that and can imagine other desktop products
hypothetically too.

> I'm not sure I quite understand the last question, but I think you're asking
> if a spin that is derived from a product is different from a spin that is
> built from general Fedora bits, and I think the answer _right now_ is "not
> by much" but it might be more important in the future.

There doesn't need to be a difference although I was curious if you or
anyone else had given any thought to it. There are branding
possibilities for "product spins" that might be different. Not
important today, just a question that fell out of my head here.

>> > We're planning on promoting solution-area products as a primary view, but we
>> > can provide a tech-showcase view too, and we can make that shiny and
>> > appealing as well. If the worry is that KDE is going to be lost in a 100
>> > remixes and spins, let's give it a special spotlight. As already noted,
>> > we're okay with keeping the spin release-blocking even if it isn't a
>> > product.
>> Until the KDE folks express their concerns if they have them directly
>> I'd rather not guess what they might be.
>
> Well, I *have* heard some of these concerns directly, but, yes, please take
> this as an invitation.

True. At the same time we can evaluate the proposed product based on
the merits of the proposal itself. This exercise will possibly flesh
out some of the fuzziness that exists today regarding what is expected
from additional products which will be a good thing.

John