Workstation PRD approval

[Bill Nottingham]

Josh Boyer (jwboyer at fedoraproject.org) said: 
> However, "general desktop _usage_" is certainly within scope.
> Developers, sysadmins, students, grandma, all use a desktop.  They
> read email.  They use a web browser.  The basics of using your
> computer are implicit as Christian says, but Matthew contends leaving
> them out reads as if there will be no focus given to them.
> 
> I would argue the target users are additive to general desktop usage.
> So instead, perhaps the PRD could incorporate somewhere that we wish
> to produce a Workstation that is high quality and usable for daily
> computing but with focus improvements in the developer areas.  This
> could perhaps be done very simply as a line addition or slight
> rewording in the mission statement.

This seems like a worthwhile effort to clarify. If I look at the latest
draft of the PRD, it does:

Target Audience
- Developer type A
- Developer type B
- Developer type C
- Developer type D
- Other users

Plans, Policies and Work:
- Robust upgrades (not developer specific at all)
- Quality releases (not developer specific at all)
- Better upgrade/rollback control (not developer specific at all)
- 3rd party software (not developer specific at all)
- Fedora ecosystem integration (not developer specific at all)
- Standardize/unify Linux desktop space (only relevant for platform
  developers, which is not a developer type called out above)
- Develop app guidelines (only relevant for a subset of developers that
  isn't a specifc one of A/B/C/D above)
- Container-based app install (only relevant for a subset...)
- Encapsulated dev environments (developer specific)

So I would agree there's a bit of a disconnect in the document between what
is said to be targeted and what is planned to be done.

Bill