Fedora board vote and way forward

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Christian Schaller <cschalle at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org>
>> To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" <desktop at lists.fedoraproject.org>
>> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 1:30:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: Fedora board vote and way forward
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsient at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 24 January 2014 10:58, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Are we? We don't even have a schedule.
>> >
>> > Sorry, I was under the impression we were shipping GNOME 3.12 in
>> > Fedora 21 and following the pattern. If that's not the case,
>> > apologies.
>>
>> For lack of any other plan, that might as well be the target at the
>> moment.  The only thing we know about schedule is that F21 will not
>> ship before August.
>>
>> >> Anyway as I understand the board any such tool should not be
>> >> specifically designed to find non free software but be more generic
>> >> "find software we do not ship".
>> >
>> > I don't understand that at all. Shouldn't a software center be
>> > designed to install software, no matter what the origin? If we're
>>
>> Yes.  Which is what the Board is saying.  It's saying you cannot know
>> where to look for, or display by default, non-free software.  So no
>> links or .repo files to e.g. flash-plugin.  It's also saying that if a
>> user explicitly searches for something, then it's possible to have the
>> installer make it easier for them to get after they've made an
>> informed choice.  Call that informed choice a "3rd party warning
>> splash screen" or something.
>
> Well we have never done that before so I don't see any point in starting now.
> Educating users as part of an integrated install is one thing, but starting to
> pop up educational messages when people download software through the browser is getting
> beyond crazy.

I was thinking software-center, not browser, but as you've pointed out
the difference between them in this specific instance is rather small.

> The way I see it is that once we have 'outsourced' access to 3rd party software to said
> 3rd parties and their websites it is no longer our business what messaging comes along
> with that software. It is not like we display warning messages today when you do 'yum update'
> from 3rd party repostories.

True.  And looking over the second item passed by the Board about
reducing technical barriers, I see that the "informed" part was
removed.  I had forgotten that, so my apologies.  It was a long
meeting.

josh