On Oct 10, 2013 8:20 PM, "Kevin Kofler" <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
>
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:58:32AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
> >> > * Fedora Workstation
> >> Will this subsume Live-Desktop.iso and Live-KDE.iso?
> >> What about other current desktop Spins?
> >> Presumably some of these might have a secondary WG.
> >
> > Right -- one of the key things we need to do is work on the infrastructure
> > for building these products in general, and make that infrastructure
> > available to SIGs for possible products outside the initial primary ones.
>
> But the current spins will become even more second-class citizens than they
> are right now, whereas 2 spins of dubious value to our real-world users
> (Server and Cloud) get featured instead. (How many people will really use
> those?) The "Workstation" (hidden GNOME) monoculture is also a completely
> unchanged continuation of the "Desktop" (hidden GNOME) monoculture with just
> a new name (a name which is all the sillier considering that most Fedora
> users are home users). The addition of 2 non-desktop spins is only a lame
> attempt at papering over that GNOME monopoly.
>
> The selection of the 3 "Products" makes the whole concept of Products and
> Working Groups worthless and counterproductive. The selection of Products
> should have been based on the existing successful spins, and the Working
> Groups formed from the existing SIGs.
>
> >> What about the main toolchain, devel languages, and X/Wayland, etc?
> >> Would they fit in here too, or would they be covered by FESCo?
> >
> > They'd fit somewhere else -- roughly where they always have been. There is
> > an idea for something like "the Fedora Commons", except we can't call it
> > that because that name is taken by the _other_ Fedora (the digital
> > repository software).
>
> Fedora Core? ;-)
>
>         Kevin Kofler
>
> --

Are you then nominating yourself for a working group to create the fourth product?

--Pete