First, I DO NOT set the Foresight agenda. List participants know that, but readers of LWN might not; your posting this article with this title makes it look like I have influence that I don't. As I posted later in the thread, consider me a gadfly. I'm a minor Foresight contributor, that's all, and for quite some time I've acted as a resident contrarian for Foresight as my main (small) contribution.
Second, I'm speaking ONLY for myself, and not for rPath.
Third, Foresight is already moving away from rPath Linux as a base; it has done so gradually by replacing many elements a few at a time; this is something that Conary makes reasonable and possible. That is fine, including from rPath's perspective -- rPath Linux is only one of the many platforms that rPath makes available in Conary format, and we have ALWAYS wanted that to be the case. From the earliest days of Conary, I've encouraged other distributions to look at Conary; after a while, it turned out that we had to roll up our own sleeves and import the other distributions. I'm not rPath's "Director of rPath Linux", I'm rPath's "Director of Operating Systems". I care deeply about rPath Linux and want to preserve its value; part of that is to not dilute it by trying to make it all things to all people.
Note that moving away from rPath Linux as the base is NOT the same as moving away from "rPath" as a base. If Foresight was no longer based on rPath Linux, it would still absolutely use Conary, rMake, rBuilder, rBuild, and other rPath technology. The question of whether one particular Linux OS platform is the right base OS platform for Foresight is practically orthogonal to using rPath technology.
I proposed this primarily as a thought experiment to help focus discussion on Foresight's core strengths, because I think that Foresight is trying to be too many things to too many people. It has engendered plenty of discussion on the list and in IRC.
"Minor contributor makes provocative suggestion to focus discussion" isn't really front page news.