What do we want to archive with Fedora?

[Bill Nottingham]

Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said: 
> But it's something some people want/think they need(²). Heck, those 
> people are probably even willing to put work into it to get it into 
> Fedora(³) -- so do we really want to forbid it? I might be wrong, but I 
> don't think that's the way to get the community involved properly.

Here's what I want to see  - I don't want to hear 'people are probably
even willing' - I want to see 'people are doing it'. If a RT kernel is
what they want, start a RT kernel repo for Fedora on their webspace, and
work to keep it up to date. If a module for their usbfrobozz is what
they need, step up, put it in Extras, and start dealing with the hassles
of keeping it up to date across updates and development.

I'll admit - the way Fedora is developed right now, we don't have
resources to throw towards projects we're not *actively* interested
in for the next release; it's why on the proposed feature list that
I need *names* for everything. The kind of community we're set up
for is less of responding to 'you should do that' and more of
'hey, I did this, what do you think?'

Bill

(*) I'm not against having kmod packages in Extras, but I think we
need to warn prospective users about what they're getting into.