Fedora 14 (two releases away folks) Feature proposal

[Adam Jackson]

On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:29 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 10/08/2009 05:10 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:04 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >>> The fallacy here is the implication that any given Fedora spin is
> >>> equivalent to an unqualified "Fedora".
> >>
> >> It's not? I thought all fedora spins had to be 'fedora'. And why is the
> >> kde or xfce spin necessarily less 'fedora' than any other? Isn't it that
> >> way by the decision of the board?
> >
> > They have to be Fedora in that they have to be composed from bits that
> > are in Fedora CVS, sure.
> >
> > If you're trying to get me to say that some spins are more equal than
> > others: some spins are more equal than others.I think that's manifest
> > from history, and from the amount of developer effort present in the
> > various spins.  I think that explicit acknowledgement of this is a
> > positive thing for the distribution and the project.
> 
> The Board has already acknowledged this when we made the desktop spin 
> the default.  We cited pretty much every point you made; both proposals 
> that were brought to the table (one by Spot and one by myself) 
> explicitly mentioned all those points).

I was pretty sure you had, yeah.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20091008/92f9baf0/attachment.sig>