On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:01 AM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
So you propose to optimize Fedora for your own internal use at the
of thousands of users?
Optimizing for automated QA and CI will increase the quality for everyone
(perhaps not immediately, but definitely in the long run, at least that's
my belief), meaning for both your purported thousands of
near-zero-bandwidth users and also for the one million other users. So yes,
if we can improve the experience for everyone in one area, at the expense
of a few percent worsened experience for a few percent of our user base in
another area (who might not even exist, we simply don't know), that sounds
like a pretty good deal to me.
No matter what you do, there will always be some people positively affected
and some people negatively affected. The point is to strike the best
balance, and also knowing your target audience. Unless that changed again,
the last time I remember, we were targeting developers and creative people.
They are going to be a minority in your already mentioned minority, because
near-zero bandwidth will simply not allow them to do this job well. If you
don't look for the best balance but instead speak in absolute statements
("size must never go up, whatever the benefits might be" -- not a direct
quote, just how you sound), then you've simply picked your own target
audience that gets 100% attention and don't care about the rest at all.
Which of course you absolutely can do for your personal goals, but I don't
believe Fedora-wide decisions should be done this way. It might also be
tempting to simply not act on a change because you don't want to make life
a bit harder for some group of people. But not acting is also acting,
because by not implementing the change, you're making the future life
harder for some other group of people, compared to what it could be. There
is nothing like not acting, just forks on the road.