[fab] Architecture Policy.

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "RS" == Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> writes:
> 
> RS> If you call the secondary architecture, community driven wouldnt
> RS> that imply that the primary architectures arent?
> 
> Hey, it was just an example.  But are you saying that isn't the case?

That is indeed the case but we are talking about political messaging 
here. Dont let the current reality distract you from the road ahead ;-)

> Here I quote spot:
> 
>> Primary: Red Hat drives the arch forward, ensures that it works, or
>> else, Fedora is in a bad bad place.
>> Secondary: Community drives the arch forward, ensures that it works, but
>> if it doesn't, the majority of the Fedora universe remains intact.
> 
> So just adding "Community driven" to the architectures that are built
> on community-run hardware outside of Red Hat's data centers doesn't
> seem at all incorrect.  I was only keying off of the text of the
> message I was responding to.
>  
> But of course I explicitly indicated that I wasn't arguing that the
> words "community driven" are the only two words that would work there;
> I was saying that it would be best some wording was chosen that didn't
> imply that the secondary architectures are somehow worse.  It would
> have been nice if you could have discussed the intent of my message
> instead of picking out a small piece to comment on.
> 

Branding by definition is all about nit picking. I am just pointing out 
that the particular name would exchange one set of bad political 
precedents with another. Yes, today the primary architectures are indeed 
due to Red Hat folks giving a higher priority to them but picking up 
"community driven" as the alternative name for secondary architectures 
implies that the current status is acceptable. We dont say "Red Hat is 
releasing Fedora Core x" for the same reason even though Red Hat 
currently does all the work in core now.

How about tier 1 and tier 2 architectures?

Rahul