[Proposal for Vote] Approve Draft 6 of the PRD

[Jens Petersen]

> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > This version still contains an explicit statement that the target
> > audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is
> > damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm
> > disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the
> > working group.

I understand what you're saying, but the product is called
Workstation not Desktop. :)

The first paragraph of the Mission Statement does mention "user-friendly"
twice and ends with "system that can appeal to a wide general audience".

I think changing "Other users" to say "Case 5: General Technical User"
(or Hobbyist Developer) would help to make it a little more balanced:
eg someone who builds/makes/admins but doesn't consider herself an application developer.
I don't think we can assume RHEL Workstation and Fedora Workstation
to have the exact same target audience.

Owen makes some good points though below I think: focus is important.

> Of course, if "for developers" is read as "can have wires sticking out
> all over the place", then we're in trouble. But to me, having polish and
> coherency and quality is something that proceeds and is a prerequisite
> for any sort of target audience. Targeting developers doesn't mean
> giving up on the basic design principles we have:
> 
>  * The user has better things to do with their time than fiddle with
>    the operating system.
>  * Configuration options have cost.
>  * Understand the real problem that the user is having, don't
>    stop at their feature request.

> Server side application development is really the primary target, though
> other types of application development - embedded, hobby, etc. are
> within scope.
> 
> (It might be clearer if the PRD separated developers by what they were
> doing rather than concentrating on their employment status.)

True, User Stories might work better than User cases.
Otherwise I feel the Hobbyist case is worth an explicit mention.

Conversely I feel Matthew's draft might be too soft on developer focus.

> a soft focus in that direction seems to me to be
> a productive way to guide the initial development of the product.

Agreed.  But it seems some people are reading it as too hard focused though.

Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in
its current form.

I do wish we had a draft already on the wiki though
to allow WG members to make small tweaks and changes
more easily, etc.

Jens