On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:36:20PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> > To expand on this - Fedora is the only significant distribution to use
> > the full GNOME stack for our desktop apps. If we don't seek to target
> > average desktop users then there's no incentive for developers to target
> > the GNOME stack, which means there's no new and interesting desktop apps
> > which means there's no incentive for average desktop users to run
> > Fedora. Saying that we won't actively discourage average desktop users
> > from running Fedora is a copout - the inevitable consequence is that
> > average desktop users will stop running Fedora because there's nothing
> > for them to use there.
> I think you're conflating what upstream does and what Fedora does.
> Fedora is a distribution that packages the applications that other
> upstreams work on. I don't think a Fedora PRD is going to either
> magically make more upstreams produce more interesting applications
> nor do I think they'll stop making them. Workstation can and should
> include the interesting desktop apps you're referring to, but Fedora
> the project has never been the one to create those.
If there are no desktop users running GNOME then there's no incentive
for developers to target it. Targetting developers is going to change
our marketing message, which is going to filter out as "Fedora isn't a
good choice for an average end user". Users end up running Unity or
Cinnamon or MATE or KDE instead, developers shift to targetting them and
we end up with no suite of well integrated applications to ship.
If that happens, I would expect Workstation to look at this and say
GNOME isn't the correct fit. As Matthias said a while ago,
Workstation isn't GNOME. Sticking with something the broader group
you're targeting isn't using is pointless.
> > Ignoring non-developers does nothing to advance Freedom.
It's likely to
> I think there is middle ground between "ignore" and "focus on".
> You're painting a picture that seems to have Workstation as simply a
> random collection of APIs and the usability is left to the users. I
> don't think that will be the case at all. At least not any more so
> than today's Fedora.
The PRD makes it pretty clear that, as far as the WG is concerned, it's
"ignore". That's not our current message.
The word ignore is not in the PRD. Please choose a different word.
> > shrink our community, so it's not clear that it's
doing anything for
> > Friends. I'd argue that any PRD should be fundamentally based on the
> > four foundations, and I'd like to see a strong justification for how
> > Workstation is doing so.
> You're approaching hyperbole here. Workstation is working through
> things and you're demanding justifications for decisions that aren't
> even made. I would rather you make suggestions for the proper focus
> and approach for Workstation. That will be more helpful.
Decisions *have* been made. They're not necessarily final, but offering
alternatives isn't useful unless there's any desire to revisit them.
Can you point me to where any decision on anything has been made aside
from Governance? We have 4 drafts of a PRD that Christian has come up
with. The entire WG hasn't even commented on it, let alone voted. If
you're basing your statement on the implication that silence is
agreement, that's understandable but people need to realize that NOW
is the time to make alternative suggestions rather than assumptions
that this is done by fiat.
I would love to see alternative draft PRDs presented.