[Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:13:23 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 02/17/2015 05:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 05:39:48PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> >>> Why not to create a new repository with reduced policy as
>> >>> Stephen proposed with the one-way dependency rule (between current
>> >>> Fedora and the new easy-for-beginners repository)?
>> >> Because this would establish a 2-class society, with double
>> >> standards standards and so on.
>> >
>> > If the distinction were drawn based on _who_ rather than _what and
>> > why_, it would. (And that was fundamentally the problem with the old
>> > Core vs. Extras.) But no one is proposing a _society_-based distinction
>> > -- instead, a _technical_ one.
>>
>> I know and understand this, but I expect the outcome to be the same:
>>
>> Ring 0 == Red Hat
>> Ring 1 == The Red Hat business/RHEL-irrelevant parts
>>
>> In other words, on the techicall level I do not see any difference to
>> CentOS+RHEL and to Core+Extras
>>
>> On the political and social level, .... it raises questions going far
>> beyond these consideration
>
> I wonder why it has become silent in this thread already?

Because commentary on the proposal was made, and nothing new has been
resubmitted?

> Is there another place where those "ideas" get discussed?

Not that I'm aware of.

josh