+1 Pete
From re-reading the whole thread, I understand that some people
don't
realize that the Big Data SIG already tried very hard to push upstream
their work.
It's not a matter of trying, it's just upstream have different priorities and we
don't have enough weight to change these.
You can put 10x/20x/30x more people on Big Data packages, it won't
change the fundamental
issue that it's a neverending task, and our packages are not trusted.
---
The discussion is not about accepting or not divergence from Fedora Packaging
guidelines for Big Data packages. If we want to ship Big Data
components in Fedora
and play a role in this industry, upstream and the big data folks
leaves us no choice in
the first place.
Worse, remaining outsiders mean that we have even less weight to
influence these projects.
The discussion is:
1. Do we want Fedora be a key player in Big Data or not <= and I can
list many other
important fields other than Big Data that are in the same position.
2. How to make a place for "products" that otherwise do not fit within
the traditional
Fedora model without compromising with our Foundations.
First question is about our distribution strategy, the second one is
organizational.
Let me be honest, if we refuse to evolve, Fedora has no future in the
current ecosystem,
and we're leaving an open road to other distribution that are more
flexible than us which
ironically includes Debian or worse Ubuntu.
It's up to you folks, hate it or not, we don't make the rules.
Regards,
H.