Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation

[Michael scherer]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:45:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
> 
> 
> 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[1]
 and got lot of feedback, the proposal was checked by Board[3] , by FESCO[2].

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 [4].

So it all boil down to "thing have changed, and so we think we should also do some changes, for
all those reasons".

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/186323.html
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1158
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next/boardproposal
[4] http://wordshack.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/board-meeting-topic-for-the-day-user-base-aka-target-audience/

-- 
Michael Scherer