Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support

[Bill Nottingham]

Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip at kanarip.com) said: 
> > These two are my big concerns - doing this badly is worse than not
> > doing it, IMO. When it comes to user's security, I don't want to give
> > promises we can't keep, or leave them in a bind.
> 
> This has been addressed in another response to the quoted message from
> Kevin.

OK. When you state in the feature page:

"Note that the following items may only apply to those that opt-in on ELC
support"

that implies that it would not apply to every package. Or are you referring
to 'users who opt-in to use ELC'?

> > Also, just going back to original first principles:
> > 
> > 	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives
> > 
> > "Fedora is not interested in having a slow rate of change, but rather to
> be
> > innovative. We do not offer a long-term release cycle because it diverts
> > attention away from innovation."
> > 
> > Long term support, in general, goes against the directly objectives of
> the
> > project. If it's felt that extending the life cycle a *specific,
> > measureable
> > amount* would be of more benefit to the project, that's probably a board
> > issue,
> > not a FESCo issue.
> > 
> 
> I've heard before it does not feel like a Feature. I guess it'll be up to
> FESCo to decide on whether or not to make a decision on this, or to relay
> the issue to the Board?

Probably, yes. But this is why I think the specific amount of extension
is a good idea to state - it makes the proposal more actionable.

Bill