|| ||John Poelstra <poelstra-AT-redhat.com> |
|| ||advisory-board-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org |
|| ||Board Strategic Working Group Meeting Recap 2010-02-15 |
|| ||Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:36:17 -0800|
|| ||Article, Thread
== Roll Call ==
* Attendees: John Poelstra, Paul Frields, Chris Tyler, Mike McGrath,
Colin Walters, Matt Domsch
== Spins ==
* Matt Domsch: gathering feedback on spins
* sent out request yesterday
* will have discussion in this group next week
== What is Fedora the Distribution? ==
* Chris Tyler: [[User:Ctyler/draft/what_is_fedora_the_distro]]
* How is the Fedora distribution defined? Is it a universe of packages,
a specific spin, or is it something else?
* What is our main ''product'', what are we trying to do?
*# Is it the package universe?
*# The default offering?
* It plays into a lot of important areas: the importance of and emphasis
on spins, the importance of the primary spin/default offering
composition, the importance of compatibility with the default offering,
the extent to which experimentation with incompatible packages or
subsystems is encouraged, and how easy (or difficult) it is for an
individual to have direct input into the shape of the distribution
* In the beginning, with Red Hat Linux, then Fedora Core... there was
one installable image.
* Starting with Fedora 7 and the elimination of the Core/Extras
distinction and the creation of spin/remix tools, the definition of "the
distribution" became less clear
* Chris: favors the ''Fedora Distribution'' as being defined as the
''package universe''. The default spin is the default entry point into
interacting with that package universe.
* John: do we risk watering down "what our ''product'' is" if we say
"it's all of the packages" ?
* Matt: do we need to then promote the Spins more than we do now, if
they are to be the users' entry points into the Package Set?
* Chris: If the ''product'' is defined as the ''default spin'' then it
is a two step process to get something into the core offering
(packaging, then getting into the default spin)
*# Get into the package universe
*# Be made part of the ''default spin''
* Mike: As it is you could draw a venn diagram of each spin and they
would all still be in the larger Fedora Package circle because they are
all a subset of packages
* Paul: Having a product that can be attained simply by removing or
installing different sets of packages doesn't imply a design
* Matt: how would we apply QA to the package universe?
** Paul: we're making progress on doing more QA on a wider range of
packages than just the default media -- framework of Test Days makes
this possible for any group to run them if desired
* Chris: for packages not part of the ''default offering'' what does
that say about them?
** Paul: The distribution is all the software we ship, but the
distribution is not a product -- we can't effectively design or use the
unit of "all software we ship"
* John: What is end result or impact of deciding that the Fedora
Distribution == Package Universe
** Chris: the way we refer to these things has subtle impacts throughout
** Mike: This ends up being somewhat of an academic discussion
** Definition of our critical path package set is more indicative of
what is important to the Fedora product
* John: How can we arrive at a conclusion for this issue?
** Chris: maybe technology will answer this question in the future
** Possible that in the future network-centric installs may become
predominant and make choice somewhat ubiquitous
** Colin: Worries that we could become Debian in that model
** Matt: think of ''default spin'' as entry point with a universe of
other options to install
** Paul: a lot of the questions we are trying to answer are about laying
a foundation to make Fedora more compelling to everyone, this may not be
one of them
* Matt: we need a rallying point for people--a tangible release, not a
** We do not think the answer to the originally posed questions is "one
or the other"
** Regardless of the answer, we can still apply focus on creating a
central product that interests people in the larger whole.
** This was a good discussion to have and we all thank Chris Tyler for
all the research and thought he put into the question
* '''NEXT ACTIONS''':
*# Recommend to the full Board that the SWG does does not believe there
is more to discuss here
*# Mark this question as ''resolved'' unless the full board requests
more discussion or a new direction to the original question
== Next SWG Meeting ==
* Paul tuning the "different default offering" page, per last Board meeting
* Spins discussion led by Matt
* Monday, February 22, 2010 @ 3 PM EST
to post comments)