On 08/11/2016 03:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 08/11/2016 11:02 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
The thing I'm missing from your statement is *how* you think splitting our
attention to a variety of different tools somehow leads to a maximized community
participation. You're skipping an important intermediate step and I can't make
that same leap.
Because you are exposing Fedora and the work of the server WG to a
larger audience by doings so ( three upstream CM communities four if you
add salt in the mix ).
Not sure about the relevance of that old saying if yours but my saying
is you are more likely to catch a fish if there are more of them in the
pond or why fish with an pole when you can use a net ( or a dynamite ) ;)
So show me how you would do it.
You would do so by using the same method/methodology you intended to do
with Ansible Galaxy it would apply to all.
> There tools to migrate between CM's so this boils down to
making the same effort
> and *presence* in Ansible Galaxy, The puppet forge etc.
>
If there are tools to automated this stuff, then what's wrong with focusing our
efforts in one place, getting it right and then later expanding to other CMs?
What's wrong with focusing on all the CM at the time. "Divide and conquer"
Well, that was too much for a small group to handle. At Flock and on the Server
meetings, we've been talking a lot about cutting back our target audience *for
the short term* to address small-to-medium business cases.
This comes a bit as backwards to me since the small to medium business
cases are more or less all running ( and maintained ) in the ( office365
) "cloud2 these days so fail to see how a) you are going to penetrate
that target audience/market and b) with what to grab their attention with.
What will this target audience gain from running Fedora server which is
not already in the "cloud"?
JBG