Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
Please review if you haven't already and cast your vote. Comments are welcome.
josh
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:50:28AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
This version still contains an explicit statement that the target audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the working group.
Matthew, I have only just had a chance to read over it. I am in agreement with you. 3 out of the 4 target audience cases were Developers. I was under the impression we were to include System Admins as part of the target audience for Workstation as well?
My suggesitios would be that we merge some of the Developer cases and add a Systems Administrator case. There are some congruenecies between the tools a SysAdmin and a Developer would need, so there is a good chance there may be some overlap in the cases.
I am not 100% sure I am part of thw working group, but I do keep up with the discussion on the list, and try to contribute where I can. I would be happy to volunteer to be a part of the group.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Matthew Garrett mjg59@srcf.ucam.orgwrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:50:28AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
This version still contains an explicit statement that the target audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the working group.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:50:28AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
This version still contains an explicit statement that the target audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the working group.
I think it's a mistake to have a secret agenda - to declare one thing and actually work on something else. Nobody is taking Fedora and building a consumer desktop with it. For structural reasons, it's hard for Fedora itself to be a slick out-of-the-box consumer desktop - Fedora isn't set up to pursue relationships with consumer content providers and OEMs, and has historically been unwilling to ship DRM and closed source software. On the other hand, Fedora *is* used as the basis of a workstation product for developers and related types of users (RHEL) and is also in itself widely used by all sorts of developers.
A secret agenda is hostile to people coming into the project - they don't understand what they should work on, why people are working what they are working on, why decisions are being made. So we shouldn't be saying that we are building a desktop with a target of everybody unless that's what we are *actually* putting resources on. Vague aspirations don't cut it.
But beyond that, one big problem that Fedora has is that a lot of Fedora community members think that they are far from the target audience - that whatever they say is being ignored because the desktop is being designed for school kids and grandparents using tablets to play games on Facebook.
Centering the PRD around developers is a statement of the common purpose that *actually exists*. A desktop designed primarily playing games on Facebook would be useless for all the people contributing to Fedora - for Red Hat and for the community.
Of course, if "for developers" is read as "can have wires sticking out all over the place", then we're in trouble. But to me, having polish and coherency and quality is something that proceeds and is a prerequisite for any sort of target audience. Targeting developers doesn't mean giving up on the basic design principles we have:
* The user has better things to do with their time than fiddle with the operating system. * Configuration options have cost. * Understand the real problem that the user is having, don't stop at their feature request.
And so forth.
Many of the other objections you've raised I think come down to misunderstanding the type of developers that we're primarily targeting. There's no idea that there will be an ecosystem of native application developers developing native applications for each other. And certainly we're not building an operating system for people who build operating systems.
Server side application development is really the primary target, though other types of application development - embedded, hobby, etc. are within scope.
(It might be clearer if the PRD separated developers by what they were dong rather than concentrating on their employment status.)
In the end a PRD that simply said that Fedora Workstation is for everyone would be of little utility in decision making, or even of forming an identity of the product. A strict focus only on developers would be limiting, but a soft focus in that direction seems to me to be a productive way to guide the initial development of the product.
+1 to approve Draft 6 of the PRD as stands
- Owen
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This version still contains an explicit statement that the target audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the working group.
I understand what you're saying, but the product is called Workstation not Desktop. :)
The first paragraph of the Mission Statement does mention "user-friendly" twice and ends with "system that can appeal to a wide general audience".
I think changing "Other users" to say "Case 5: General Technical User" (or Hobbyist Developer) would help to make it a little more balanced: eg someone who builds/makes/admins but doesn't consider herself an application developer. I don't think we can assume RHEL Workstation and Fedora Workstation to have the exact same target audience.
Owen makes some good points though below I think: focus is important.
Of course, if "for developers" is read as "can have wires sticking out all over the place", then we're in trouble. But to me, having polish and coherency and quality is something that proceeds and is a prerequisite for any sort of target audience. Targeting developers doesn't mean giving up on the basic design principles we have:
- The user has better things to do with their time than fiddle with the operating system.
- Configuration options have cost.
- Understand the real problem that the user is having, don't stop at their feature request.
Server side application development is really the primary target, though other types of application development - embedded, hobby, etc. are within scope.
(It might be clearer if the PRD separated developers by what they were doing rather than concentrating on their employment status.)
True, User Stories might work better than User cases. Otherwise I feel the Hobbyist case is worth an explicit mention.
Conversely I feel Matthew's draft might be too soft on developer focus.
a soft focus in that direction seems to me to be a productive way to guide the initial development of the product.
Agreed. But it seems some people are reading it as too hard focused though.
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in its current form.
I do wish we had a draft already on the wiki though to allow WG members to make small tweaks and changes more easily, etc.
Jens
----- Original Message -----
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 14:41 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
This version still contains an explicit statement that the target audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the working group.
I understand what you're saying, but the product is called Workstation not Desktop. :)
The product isn't called anything. The Working Group is called "Workstation".
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 05:22:05 -0500 (EST) Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
I do wish we had a draft already on the wiki though to allow WG members to make small tweaks and changes more easily, etc.
Jens
How would you control who "tweaks", can't all FAS ac holders modify wiki.
___ Regards, Frank www.frankly3d.com
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in its current form.
OK, so right now I have the following votes:
Jens +1 Lukáš +1 Owen +1 Christian +1 Kalev (no vote) Christoph (no vote) Matthias (no vote) Ryan (no vote) Josh (no vote)
I've been holding off on casting a vote for the time being because I want the WG to drive decisions as much as possible without the liaison deciding things. So, if the remaining 4 of you could vote that would be good. This is actually due to FESCo today, but I sent the call for votes one day too late. Remember, non-votes turn into implicit abstains after tomorrow and the votes required to pass are adjusted accordingly.
josh
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 09:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in its current form.
OK, so right now I have the following votes:
Jens +1 Lukáš +1 Owen +1 Christian +1 Kalev (no vote) Christoph (no vote) Matthias (no vote) Ryan (no vote) Josh (no vote)
I've been holding off on casting a vote for the time being because I want the WG to drive decisions as much as possible without the liaison deciding things. So, if the remaining 4 of you could vote that would be good. This is actually due to FESCo today, but I sent the call for votes one day too late. Remember, non-votes turn into implicit abstains after tomorrow and the votes required to pass are adjusted accordingly.
I'm sorry - I was snowed under other stuff, and this just didn't make it to the top of the pile in time: My vote, if it still counts: +1
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 09:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in its current form.
OK, so right now I have the following votes:
Jens +1 Lukáš +1 Owen +1 Christian +1 Kalev (no vote) Christoph (no vote) Matthias (no vote) Ryan (no vote) Josh (no vote)
I've been holding off on casting a vote for the time being because I want the WG to drive decisions as much as possible without the liaison deciding things. So, if the remaining 4 of you could vote that would be good. This is actually due to FESCo today, but I sent the call for votes one day too late. Remember, non-votes turn into implicit abstains after tomorrow and the votes required to pass are adjusted accordingly.
I'm sorry - I was snowed under other stuff, and this just didn't make it to the top of the pile in time: My vote, if it still counts: +1
It does, thanks. I'll close the call for votes at end of business today. At that point I'll get the PRD on the wiki and I'll send it to FESCo.
josh
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 09:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in its current form.
OK, so right now I have the following votes:
Jens +1 Lukáš +1 Owen +1 Christian +1 Kalev (no vote) Christoph (no vote) Matthias (no vote) Ryan (no vote) Josh (no vote)
I've been holding off on casting a vote for the time being because I want the WG to drive decisions as much as possible without the liaison deciding things. So, if the remaining 4 of you could vote that would be good. This is actually due to FESCo today, but I sent the call for votes one day too late. Remember, non-votes turn into implicit abstains after tomorrow and the votes required to pass are adjusted accordingly.
I'm sorry - I was snowed under other stuff, and this just didn't make it to the top of the pile in time: My vote, if it still counts: +1
It does, thanks. I'll close the call for votes at end of business today. At that point I'll get the PRD on the wiki and I'll send it to FESCo.
End of business what timezone?
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 09:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in its current form.
OK, so right now I have the following votes:
Jens +1 Lukáš +1 Owen +1 Christian +1 Kalev (no vote) Christoph (no vote) Matthias (no vote) Ryan (no vote) Josh (no vote)
I've been holding off on casting a vote for the time being because I want the WG to drive decisions as much as possible without the liaison deciding things. So, if the remaining 4 of you could vote that would be good. This is actually due to FESCo today, but I sent the call for votes one day too late. Remember, non-votes turn into implicit abstains after tomorrow and the votes required to pass are adjusted accordingly.
I'm sorry - I was snowed under other stuff, and this just didn't make it to the top of the pile in time: My vote, if it still counts: +1
It does, thanks. I'll close the call for votes at end of business today. At that point I'll get the PRD on the wiki and I'll send it to FESCo.
End of business what timezone?
Good question. I'll just say:
22:00 UTC Jan 21 2014.
josh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/21/2014 12:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 09:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in its current form.
OK, so right now I have the following votes:
Jens +1 Lukáš +1 Owen +1 Christian +1 Kalev (no vote) Christoph (no vote) Matthias (no vote) Ryan (no vote) Josh (no vote)
I've been holding off on casting a vote for the time being because I want the WG to drive decisions as much as possible without the liaison deciding things. So, if the remaining 4 of you could vote that would be good. This is actually due to FESCo today, but I sent the call for votes one day too late. Remember, non-votes turn into implicit abstains after tomorrow and the votes required to pass are adjusted accordingly.
I'm sorry - I was snowed under other stuff, and this just didn't make it to the top of the pile in time: My vote, if it still counts: +1
It does, thanks. I'll close the call for votes at end of business today. At that point I'll get the PRD on the wiki and I'll send it to FESCo.
End of business what timezone?
Good question. I'll just say:
22:00 UTC Jan 21 2014.
So, I've been reading through the PRD in my FESCo capacity (presuming that this draft is what is being submitted for approval at tomorrow's meeting).
Concerns: * Target Audience 1: Student * While I certainly would hope that we can support Steam (I assume that's the stealth requirement there), it seems like a divergence from the rest of the targets. If this is something the product wants to focus on, I suspect it should be a separate Target Audience: Video Game Players. * To me, a student target should really imply a closely-integrated development environment (particularly built around a set of common and simple tools, such as Eclipse and DevAssistant).
* Other Users: * I'd make it clear that this is a non-exhaustive list of things that are not being directly targeted (though as noted they will benefit indirectly. Right now it almost reads to me as "We almost forgot to mention this stuff, but it's a priority too!" I realize this is a bit of a flame-war in the discussions, but if you try to be everything for everyone, you'll be stuck in the same limbo that Fedora is in today.
* Robust Upgrades: * I suspect this is a phrasing problem, but this doesn't read properly to me. Upgrades should be the same as an original install? I suspect what is meant here is something along the lines of: "If I install with the updates repo enabled, my system should be no different than if I installed from the initial release and ran 'yum update' (except for user data).
* 3rd Party Software: * If this can be worked out with the Fedora Advisory Board and the lawyers, great. My +1 to this segment is contingent on that.
Hi Stephen, Thanks for the feedback.
1) As for steam. It is in there as it is something we expect to get resolved through the 3rd party software solution. If that part falls through I guess we can edit it out, but if we manage to resolve the 3rd party issue in a positive manner then I don't think it is to much of a stretch to assume a lot of CS students like to play some games on their system from time to time.
2) Once we have it up on the wiki I will take another look at this paragraph and revise it again. Maybe also you and Josh who are native English speakers could help me nail it down.
3) Correct, lets edit that too once we have the wiki in place
4) Yeah, or we turn the Software installer into a browser app ;)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Gallagher" sgallagh@redhat.com To: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:14:18 PM Subject: Re: [Proposal for Vote] Approve Draft 6 of the PRD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/21/2014 12:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 09:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in its current form.
OK, so right now I have the following votes:
Jens +1 Lukáš +1 Owen +1 Christian +1 Kalev (no vote) Christoph (no vote) Matthias (no vote) Ryan (no vote) Josh (no vote)
I've been holding off on casting a vote for the time being because I want the WG to drive decisions as much as possible without the liaison deciding things. So, if the remaining 4 of you could vote that would be good. This is actually due to FESCo today, but I sent the call for votes one day too late. Remember, non-votes turn into implicit abstains after tomorrow and the votes required to pass are adjusted accordingly.
I'm sorry - I was snowed under other stuff, and this just didn't make it to the top of the pile in time: My vote, if it still counts: +1
It does, thanks. I'll close the call for votes at end of business today. At that point I'll get the PRD on the wiki and I'll send it to FESCo.
End of business what timezone?
Good question. I'll just say:
22:00 UTC Jan 21 2014.
So, I've been reading through the PRD in my FESCo capacity (presuming that this draft is what is being submitted for approval at tomorrow's meeting).
Concerns: * Target Audience 1: Student * While I certainly would hope that we can support Steam (I assume that's the stealth requirement there), it seems like a divergence from the rest of the targets. If this is something the product wants to focus on, I suspect it should be a separate Target Audience: Video Game Players. * To me, a student target should really imply a closely-integrated development environment (particularly built around a set of common and simple tools, such as Eclipse and DevAssistant).
* Other Users: * I'd make it clear that this is a non-exhaustive list of things that are not being directly targeted (though as noted they will benefit indirectly. Right now it almost reads to me as "We almost forgot to mention this stuff, but it's a priority too!" I realize this is a bit of a flame-war in the discussions, but if you try to be everything for everyone, you'll be stuck in the same limbo that Fedora is in today.
* Robust Upgrades: * I suspect this is a phrasing problem, but this doesn't read properly to me. Upgrades should be the same as an original install? I suspect what is meant here is something along the lines of: "If I install with the updates repo enabled, my system should be no different than if I installed from the initial release and ran 'yum update' (except for user data).
* 3rd Party Software: * If this can be worked out with the Fedora Advisory Board and the lawyers, great. My +1 to this segment is contingent on that.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 09:09 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Overall I think the PRD is well written and I can live with it in its current form.
OK, so right now I have the following votes:
Jens +1 Lukáš +1 Owen +1 Christian +1 Kalev (no vote) Christoph (no vote) Matthias (no vote) Ryan (no vote) Josh (no vote)
I've been holding off on casting a vote for the time being because I want the WG to drive decisions as much as possible without the liaison deciding things. So, if the remaining 4 of you could vote that would be good. This is actually due to FESCo today, but I sent the call for votes one day too late. Remember, non-votes turn into implicit abstains after tomorrow and the votes required to pass are adjusted accordingly.
I'm sorry - I was snowed under other stuff, and this just didn't make it to the top of the pile in time: My vote, if it still counts: +1
It does, thanks. I'll close the call for votes at end of business today. At that point I'll get the PRD on the wiki and I'll send it to FESCo.
Final vote:
+1: 6 (Jens, Lukáš, Owen, Kalev, Matthias, Christian) 0: 3 (Christoph, Ryan, Josh (implicit abstains)) -1: 0
So the PRD is approved.
The PRD is on the wiki and I have opened a FESCo ticket for approval. I suspect we will have to do some editing around the 3rd party section at some point in the near future.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1226
josh
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Final vote:
+1: 6 (Jens, Lukáš, Owen, Kalev, Matthias, Christian) 0: 3 (Christoph, Ryan, Josh (implicit abstains)) -1: 0
So the PRD is approved.
The PRD is on the wiki and I have opened a FESCo ticket for approval. I suspect we will have to do some editing around the 3rd party section at some point in the near future.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1226
FESCo deferred approval of the PRD as they have some questions they would like to have clarification on. I've asked that they put their specific questions in the FESCo ticket by Friday, and I'll forward them on to the WG then. Those interested can watch the ticket and reply in-place in the meantime.
josh
Dne 14.1.2014 15:41, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:50:28AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
This version still contains an explicit statement that the target audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the working group.
I'd also very much like to see the target group (or use cases) broadened in a way to include content creators as well (think audio workstation, graphics workstation, webdesign, etc.). So far it only lists (very explicitly) one case for a student and 3 distinct sofware developer cases.
Otherwise I agree with the listed plans and policies.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Lukáš Tinkl ltinkl@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 14.1.2014 15:41, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:50:28AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
This version still contains an explicit statement that the target audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the working group.
I'd also very much like to see the target group (or use cases) broadened in a way to include content creators as well (think audio workstation, graphics workstation, webdesign, etc.). So far it only lists (very explicitly) one case for a student and 3 distinct sofware developer cases.
Is that something we could perhaps add later? In that we focus on what is there now, and then see what other use cases are already covered or almost covered? I don't think the PRD is something set in stone, and I would think it will evolve over time. Otherwise we risk just repeating being stuck on something.
Otherwise I agree with the listed plans and policies.
For the purposes of clarity and record keeping, is that a +1 vote?
josh
Dne 15.1.2014 19:09, Josh Boyer napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Lukáš Tinkl ltinkl@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 14.1.2014 15:41, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 07:50:28AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
This version still contains an explicit statement that the target audience is made up of developers. I've explained why I think this is damaging, and Christian obviously disagrees with me. However, I'm disappointed to see very little feedback from any other members of the working group.
I'd also very much like to see the target group (or use cases) broadened in a way to include content creators as well (think audio workstation, graphics workstation, webdesign, etc.). So far it only lists (very explicitly) one case for a student and 3 distinct sofware developer cases.
Is that something we could perhaps add later? In that we focus on what is there now, and then see what other use cases are already covered or almost covered? I don't think the PRD is something set in stone, and I would think it will evolve over time. Otherwise we risk just repeating being stuck on something.
Otherwise I agree with the listed plans and policies.
For the purposes of clarity and record keeping, is that a +1 vote?
josh
Yes, a +1. The PRD states somewhere at the beginning that it is an evolving document.
On 01/14/2014 01:50 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
Please review if you haven't already and cast your vote. Comments are welcome.
Looks good to me. +1
I very much like how the PRD sets specific goals, while still supporting the general desktop use case. Having priorities set and common goals is in my opinion very important, and something that the Fedora project as a whole has failed previously.
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 07:50 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Per our governance I'm calling for an official vote on the sixth draft of the PRD that Christian has provided. I've attached it again for reference. WG members have one week from today to vote. Missing votes after one week will be counted as abstains.
I am not a WG member, but just for the record - I rather dislike the included links to proprietary software repositories as suggested by the "3rd party software".
You're reading this email right now because of the introductory startup text displayed by Emacs. I read it in college, learned more about GNU, and, well, here I am.
I'm not sure at a technical level the idea works that well - say Adobe only releases Reader for x86_64 initially. Then they later add an i686 build. We'd have to ship an updated repository file package. It just feels awkward. I guess the relevant release engineers from these proprietary software companies could maintain the packages containing the repo files or something.
Now I certainly think part of the freedom in Free Software is the choice to run proprietary software. So I don't feel it's contradictory to spend some engineering work on making that safer.
It'd certainly be nice for those people who do choose to install proprietary desktop apps if didn't have to give Adobe (or whoever) free unchecked root access to one's system by allowing them to install RPMs just to ship a desktop app. Perhaps this is covered by "Container based application install".
Anyways I'd hope most engineering time goes on improving the quality of Free Software. That's the choice I made personally. Which speaking of:
On "Robust Upgrades", "Quality releases", and "Better upgrade/rollback control", I have some interesting stuff in that area when we the time to discuss implementation arrives.
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org