Underlying DE for the Workstation product, Desktop -vs- Workstation

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 20:29 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 02/03/2014 08:06 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I don't think we necessarily need to pursue this debate any further in
> > this context - I just don't think it's necessary for either point of
> > view.
> >
> > The Workstation "product" WG gets to define the lines that bound the
> > Workstation product. But:
> >
> > * it doesn't get to define anything in particular about the
> > non-Workstation space
> > * it doesn't get to decide precisely how our marketing is going to work
> 
> So KDE and rest can come up with their own product and related Fedora 
> brand or are you saying that WG's own those "spaces" and related brands 
> ( cloud/server/workstation ) and no one can competed with them?

As I understand it, there is nothing about the .next process which
precludes the creation of, say, a KDE Product.

It's been noted in this thread that if we go down the road of creating
more and more products, we get back to the problem of deciding and
communicating their relative precedence: but that, again, is a
discussion that has to happen on a project-wide basis, it's kind of
pointless to argue about it within the context of a specific WG.

The Board and FESCo have already approved the Workstation product. The
Workstation WG has decided - I believe - they want that product to be
based around a single desktop, not attempt to stake a claim on the
entire space: that's what I asked in
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-January/008834.html , and what Josh answered clearly in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-January/008835.html :

"To be honest, I think that's up to the FESCo/Board level.  There
are spins that extend beyond just choice of DE, and people could want
to create different spins of Server, etc.  So I personally wouldn't
advocate for the Workstation WG to solve that issue."

Again, I really think the most productive way forward here is to let the
Workstation WG get on with the business of deciding their desktop and
starting to define and work on the product they will be creating.

I think there are important and useful discussions to be had about how
we handle desktops that are *not* the one the Workstation product is
based around, but it makes no sense to discuss those questions here,
given the above. Those questions are for the project as a whole to
resolve. There are all sorts of things we can consider, and a lot of
them are already being discussed in the unfortunately titled "fate of
Spins" thread on devel at . That seems like the appropriate - or at least,
a *more* appropriate - venue to me, as it is not in a thread about the
Workstation product on a list which is specifically for the desktop spin
and the Workstation WG/product.

It might be appropriate to consider these issues here *if the
Workstation WG / Product appeared to be trying to do something
controversial in regard to the question of what to do about other
desktops*, but I really can't see that they are. As linked above, Josh
has explicitly suggested that's up to FESCo/Board (i.e. the project as a
whole), and I can't find a single person who's disagreed.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net