On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 02:43:54PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 02/20/2010 06:24 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 08:19:57AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:01 +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>> I would rather have the SIG be in a position to make the assumption
>>> the Desktop and KDE spins are safe and well-cared of rather then the
>>> Fedora Project itself doing so, and I would want to eliminate the
>>> "exception to the normal process" for these spins so that we have
>>> less exception to the rules.
>> I still don't see the Desktop an KDE live images as "spins". The
>> one is borderline.
> While I do see the KDE Live image as a spin, the fact remains that I
> can name a sizable handful of people who are constantly involved in
> ensuring its proper working order. Messrs. Kofler, Dieter, Ngo,
> Parrish, Řezník, and Boeckel come to mind off hand. I'm sure there
> are quite a few others.
I fail to see how the number of people involved (that we know of, that
we can point out) is part of the definition of a "spin".
I wasn't proposing a definition of spins based on number of people. I
think we have a good definition for spins already, which is that spins
are customized remixes of Fedora, specifically those with trademark
approval -- images other than the standard DVD and Desktop images that
our community produces. I was just trying to answer the question of
why the Desktop and KDE images might not need an extra layer of
review, given that they each have many people actively reviewing them.
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
- - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com