FESCo Workstation PRD follow up questions

[Josh Boyer]

Hi All,

As noted last week, FESCo deferred approval of the Workstation PRD
because they had some questions.  Below are the questions they've come
up with thus far.

1) How does the Fedora Design Team play into the standardization work?

This is in reference to the "Work towards standardizing and unifying
the Linux desktop space" bullet.  Specifically, the theme part IIRC.

2) What is the actual deliverable and delivery mechanism for Workstation?

This is asking how we intend to ship the Workstation product.  ISO,
live USB image, something else?

3) FESCo has said schedules should be kept in-sync for now. Should the
release schedule section still be included?

This is in reference to the "The working group will also be
responsible for defining release schedule while also taking the needs
of the other working groups into consideration and the resources
available from the Fedora infrastructure team." line.

We might consider just changing this to:

"The working group will also be responsible for on-going feedback and
suggestions on release schedules, based on collaboration with upstream
components, the other Working Groups and FESCo, and Fedora
Infrastructure."

4) What traditional policies and rules will be modified from the
existing Fedora policies/rules?

This is in reference to the section at the top of the PRD that says:
"Being a new product the Fedora Workstation will have its basic rules
and targets set through this PRD and thus there will be deviations
from some of the traditional policies or rules that the old Fedora
project followed. "

FESCo has clearly and repeatedly stated that it retains oversight to
all decisions all WGs make.  It might be simpler to just remove this
line.

Lastly, we now know that the 3rd party repository item has been, at
best, severely limited in what is considered permissible.  There were
comments on the ticket pertaining to this, but it was under discussion
by the Board so FESCo did not have a specific question for the PRD in
this regard.  I would anticipate FESCo will push back on the existing
text under the 3rd party section.  Perhaps we should reword this
before taking it back to FESCo?

josh