Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
misc at zarb.org
Fri Nov 8 14:22:10 UTC 2013
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:45:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I'm still slightly out of sync with the fedora.next stuff (REALLY picked
> > a bad time to go on vacation), but it does seem to me that a decent
> > amount of 'mature reflection' was done on it before it was approved, at
> > least.
> I don't really have a problem in believing that but it would be useful to
> know in more detail how the initial proposals came to be (who were
> involved? what problems are we trying to solve? what are failures of the
> current model? did it go through Red Hat management internally before
> being proposed and is more headcount being allotted? Was Fedora Board and
> FESCo members aware that a proposal were coming through and what was their
> rationale for choosing to go forward? etc)
I suspect Mattew discussed this around him before, as anything anyone would
propose. Would chatting with Spot on IRC count as going with Red Hat management,
or just 2 community member talking together ? Because the outcome would be the
same. But the
The proposal was discussed IRL during Flock, the proposal was discussed here before
and got lot of feedback, the proposal was checked by Board , by FESCO.
And I think this was in line with the discussion on the whole "product or platform"
on the Board mailling list, who was started by the user base discussion initiated
by Robyn .
So it all boil down to "thing have changed, and so we think we should also do some changes, for
all those reasons".
More information about the devel