Summary of accepted Fedora 20 Changes - week 30

[Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller]

On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 16:20 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
<SNIP>
> (/me notes that if mattdm's Ring 1 was defined, this might be somewhat
> easier to decide upon.  If sendmail was in Ring 1 it would be an expected
> part of the Fedora Platform.  Anything general purpose and carrying the name
> Fedora would probably have to carry it as well.  If sendmail was in Ring 2,
> it probably would be fine to choose whether to install it or not as it
> wasn't a guaranteed part of the BaseOS. [You could also
> s at sendmail@/usr/bin/sendmail@ in that analysis if you so chose])
> 
> -Toshio

There is nothing in the Ring proposal which would make any of this any
easier as it is. It is not going to be any easier to agree what is 'ring
1' than it currently is to agree what is @standard. Only if the rings
had a defined usecase that would change, but then we could also just
agree on the usecase for @standard, and judge sendmail in and out
against that :)

As I see it all these flamewars and discussions comes down to a few core
problems. One is that Red Hat is not very clear about why we are
investing in Fedora and what we need from Fedora to be interested in
continuing that investment, although some things are of course implied
by RHEL being derived from Fedora. 

The second issue is that as a community we make everything using the
packages produced into 'Fedora'. The Fedora community use the Fedora
trademark almost like the smurfs use the word 'smurf' - as a catchall
term :) Which in turn leads to endless arguments about what 'Fedora' is.
In some sense the word better describes a process than it describes the
output these days, and maybe we should update the use of the naming and
branding to reflect that. 

The first question is something we are discussing inside Red Hat and
trying to resolve currently, the second question can be solved in a a
variety of ways.

Christian