reviving Fedora Legacy

[Patrice Dumas]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:37:03PM -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> 
> "We" are saying no because "they" want "us" to do something, rather
> than doing it themselves.  All of the software that goes into
> producing Fedora is free (in both the Beer and Speech senses).  What
> *isn't* free is the infrastructure that goes into producing Fedora
> releases (the power/cooling/bandwidth/hardware as well as the time of
> the various employees and volunteers).   *I* think that Red Hat has
> been extremely generous in letting us use that infrastructure to build
> a cool distribution like Fedora.

If it turns out that this project requires too much resources, as I
repeadly said, no problem not to do it. But currently I don't think it
requires much resources (and I may be wrong), since it profits from
scale economies and the fact that there isn't a full use of the
resources most of the time (on the builders).

> But why should Red Hat (and those of us that believe in the current
> Fedora mission) let that infrastructure and perhaps more importantly
> the Fedora brand get used for some "Fedora LTS" project?  Based upon

The fedora brand wouldn't be involved, at least until the project has
proven to be succesful.

> the failure of the Fedora Legacy project and the most recent

It was under different conditions, but I'm becoming to be tired of
reexplaining that. I made that point in at least 2 mails if not 3...

> discussion there are only a few people interested in volunteering
> their time to such a project.  And from what I've seen in this latest

I'd say the rerverse. Very fine packagers like Kevin, Chris and Orion
seemed to be supportive (at least of the idea), and there were also
some users saying that they would love to see such a project happen. And
Jesse and Josh made very constructive comments. Sure there are also many
people that are against the idea, among those who count in fedora, but
it is definitly much better than the last attempt.

How many people started EPEL?

> discussion the LTS project goals are either ill-defined or
> overambitious or both.

Reread Kevin proposition and my answers to Josh. At least it is not ill
defined (and there is still the UEAL proposal that can be a commplement)
as for overambition I don't really see what you mean here.

--
Pat