Mike McGrath mmcgrath at redhat.com
Mon Nov 3 00:52:01 UTC 2008

> IMHO, anything hosted on Fedora infrastructure needs to follow the
> Request for Resources process.  I have not seen such requesting
> hosting for posting ISOs containing Fedora 10 with the Sugar desktop.

No such thing currently exists, I'll get to work on that.

> I missed something...
> * The Board granted trademark approval for a remix including Sugar.
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC notes a _goal_ is to have a
>   Sugar remix.
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OLPC/Tasks notes "Sugar spin is
>   official" which isn't quite right.  The concept has trademark
>   approval.  Sugar is an accepted F10 feature, but a "hosted Sugar
remix" I
>   believe, is not.

True, it missed the deadline for this.

> AFAICT, a Sugar remix has not gone through the Fedora feature process,
> no Infrastructure resources have been requested (by RFR or ticket).
> If we're going to, from now on, have a Fedora Sugar release alongside
> the KDE and XFCE, Developer, Games, Edu-Math... remixes then
> Infrastructure needs for such need to be understood, documented, and
> approved by FI as part of the feature process.

I could be wrong but I don't think spins are a feature.  There's a spins
approval process that is independent of the feature process and I think
this is because the spin itself has no additional features, just in a new

> Barring this, FI does have at its discretion a limited ability to host
> content that isn't "official remixes", but this is a very limited
> resource (currently at 62% capacity before more remixes are added)
> which also serves Fedora Secondary Architectures and serves some roles
> for rel-eng too.  It's not unlimited, and it's not likely to become
> unlimited in the near term.  (donations of multi-TB SANs, rack space,
> power, bandwidth, are welcome and could provide additional
> capability).

Actually we do still have 2.98T not exposed to this guest that can be.

> If FI can accommodate that hosting, fine, but that isn't guaranteed
> for any remix, official or not.  Because these remixes are growing in
> number rapidly, faster than FI resources are growing, this becomes
> quite painful - and yes, those who are proposed earlier have a better
> chance of getting FI resources than those proposed later (or having
> missed the feature deadline completely).
> All this is to say, I'm not going to vote to force FI to host any
> specific remix, "official" or not.  That's an unfunded mandate.  I
> would hope FI could host "official" remixes before providing space for
> "unofficial" remixes, but first-come-first-served trumps the
> official/unofficial distinction.

I think the confusion is a lack of policy.  I want people who say "I want
hosting" to be able to go to a page and know the answer to hosting without
someone arbitrarily saying "this can be hosted" and "this can't".  The
would be sugar spin is in an odd state right now and, because the spins
process takes so long, will be stuck there for many months until F11 beta.

> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BrOffice.orgSpin
> Thanks,
> Matt
> (who needs to go scouting for more storage if this keeps up...)

Really storage isn't the issue, policy is.  (or lack thereof).  I'll throw
some guidelines together on Monday for approval.  There is some precedent
for "non fedora" stuff to be hosted on FI, like fedora hosted.  In the
meantime, how much of a commitment do we want to make to non-fedora stuff?


More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list