Fedora Plasma Product, feedback please

[Rex Dieter]

Christian Schaller wrote:

> The standards based approach has been attempted for 13 years now,
> and for all those 13 years I have yet to meet anyone who likes or
> thinks the LSB approach is working.

I can't think of any instance in fedora's past where there was a concerted 
effort to define a standard workstation.  Fedora.next is new, and offers an 
opportunity to do just that, to define a workstation product.

Let's work more to define standards, specifications, and requirements, 
rather than specific technologies.

One analogy, Fedora Server isn't all about a single deliverable like 
*apache* (as one specific technology example).  It's about defining roles 
and requirements.

I would suggest treating Workstation product not too undifferently.  Focus 
on defining supported standards/specifications, apis, environment 
requirements.  Then any implementation that satisfies those (naturally or 
explicitly) can be considered part of Fedora Workstation.

Yes, this will be a harder and slower path to gratification, but I think the 
risks of not doing so are worse.

-- Rex