On 11/08/2016 10:43 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
I'm happy to own the problem as long as, as mentioned in the mail to Stephen, "Fedora" trusts GNOME to do what's right for the distributors, and we don't get those knee-jerk logo slapping reaction, but constructive feedback.
We also need to be able to quantify what success would be.
Putting the burden on GNOME, and the Fedora version of GNOME to carry all the branding of the distribution for Fedora Workstation is unfair, IMO. Having a Fedora blue hue to the default shell-prompt is likely more recognisable and more generally useful a downstream change than the boot logo. See how well the Linux tux logo is recognised as the airplane media centre sign for failure.
To be fair, I explicitly stated that the "logo in the header bar" idea was intentionally a straw-man to start a discussion. I hadn't thought of changing the shell chrome color, but that's certainly worth consideration.
And yes, I agree that the bootloader references to Fedora are not a terribly effective means of identifying Fedora: if you are seeing it, then you are either booting for the first time (and already know what is coming) or a reboot has occurred and either you already know what is coming or something has gone wrong, in which case we probably don't want to shout our name around at that point :)
What I was most concerned about was that it seemed like you were coming down on the side of "Fedora should just ship GNOME however GNOME upstream wants it" which was ignoring Fedora's needs entirely. I'm quite happy to work together on figuring out how we can solve this in upstream GNOME to solve Fedora's (and by extension, other distros') needs for brand identity.
The reason we've done things downstream in the past is mostly because (as Christian noted) the problem isn't highly prioritized upstream, so it gets ignored until it becomes a fire-drill. So let's work on that; let's plan solve the Fedora 26 problem in 2016 (or really early in 2017) so it's ready to be implemented in time for a Spring 2017 release.