back to the basics of fedora.next
jreznik at redhat.com
Mon Nov 11 13:30:46 UTC 2013
----- Original Message -----
> [Apologies for late replies to a long, wandering thread. I've been at a
> confernece and am just catching up.]
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 08:47:44AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > Where's the benefit of creating a handful of workgroups that now
> > have some sort of power over the distribution? After reading all of
> I wouldn't phrase it that way. The idea is to create working groups who
> accept responsibility for a part of the distribution.
> > "Fedora.next" process. I agree Fedora needs to continue to evolve,
> > but this process appears to shake the foundations of Fedora.
> > Specifics: Different kernels per "product", app sandboxing (lib
> > bundling). Will the DVD/Live ISOs currently created cease to exist
> > F21+? Fragmentation of Fedora into Cloud/Workstation/Server
> > "products"?
> Again, I don't think I'd phrase it that way. We want to target different use
> cases differently. Up until now, people who want to run Fedora on servers
> (and there are a lot of them -- I was just at Usenix LISA and spoke to many
> people doing so) have been to some degree at the mercy of decisions made for
> "the default offering", and the only thing stopping that has been sudden
> interventions from Red Hat regarding RHEL needs when there's a perception
> that things have gone "astray". That's not a good way to do it -- there
> should be a Fedora Server voice in its own right.
> Still, fragmentation wouldn't be a good result, which is why we have the
> Base Design group -- and existing groups like Marketing and Design will
> still be involved across the board.
This is one thing we touched at Base WG and it was raised as part of the
Base WG role - we need a way how to communicate between different WGs, we
need a way how to reach other teams as marketing, design etc. (actually not
to forget we have these). Especially as Base WG has to gather the requirements
from project based on the Base.
I'll try to draft a way how we could do it - it's probably enough high level
to bring it to the Board. And probably makes sense to restart the discussion
how much sense is to have Board in the current way how it's implemented or
if we want to move it forward and better fit the new model - to have
representatives from WGs, from other teams, to actually coordinate project.
Not just being a body to give stamps to trademark requests.
It's great many WGs are trying to share a lot of stuff, to avoid kind of
fragmentation where it does not make a lot of sense, se we have very similar
charters. We definitely has to go further and find a balance, based on
resources we have, flexibility we want etc. I don't see as a big issue to
at least start collecting bold ideas, at one point, we would have to sit
down and try to pick up what's possible, what are our goals for the future
and how to make these goals possible.
More information about the devel