Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
awilliam at redhat.com
Tue Nov 5 21:32:43 UTC 2013
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 22:15 +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:56:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > bad outcome as low as possible. "Let's just try it and see what
> > happens!" is not a mature approach to risk management.
> Ehr, instead of promoting something as supported, just start off slow.
> Call if alpha, write down all the concerns, etc. Announcing this as the
> new supported + preferred way is not what is intended IMO.
> Your post effectively read as stop energy IMO. It is impossible to get
> everything right at the first version. Just ensure everyones expectation
> is correct. Call it experimental + alpha initially.
> Various concerns have been raised. Just write them down, make a plan to
> address them, done.
What I'm trying to do is contribute to ensuring that happens. As I wrote
in another post, I've always thought it'd be great if distros could
collaborate on a single approved framework/channel for third party
software releases (preferably before Valve does it for us). But it
definitely _does_ need to be the case that this is done carefully and
with a clear decision made on to what extent we choose to 'bless' this
mechanism in comparison to the distro repositories.
Essentially I'm trying to make the point that this is an extremely
sensitive issue which has the potential to cause long-term and
non-reversible changes to software distribution paradigms we've been
using for decades, so it needs to be handled carefully and with an
appreciation of all the consequences, not just with a 'hey, let's build
it, slap together some press about it and see what happens' kind of
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
More information about the devel