[Fwd: Fedora Foundation]

[Chasecreek Systemhouse]

[yes I myself had already seen it but originally withheld comment; but
see below]

On 4/6/06, Mike Chambers <mike at miketc.com> wrote:
> Just in case any of you aren't on the Announce or Fedora lists, you can
> read this for yourself.
>
> Sorry for cross posting or if most have already read this, but didn't
> see anyone from either list (or I missed it) really commenting much on
> it.
>
> Mike
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > From: Max Spevack <mspevack at redhat.com>
> > Reply-To: fedora-list at redhat.com
> > To: fedora-announce-list at redhat.com
> > Subject: Fedora Foundation
> > Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 22:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
> >
> > To my fellow Fedora community members:
> >
> > As many of you are aware, FUDCon Boston is this Friday.  One of the most
> > important topics that we will be discussing there is the future of the
> > Fedora Project, specifically with regard to the Fedora Foundation.
...

> > "in-kind contributions".  That means we'd have to track:
> >
> > * The cost of bandwidth for distributing Fedora to the world;
> >
> > * Every hour that Red Hat engineers spend working on Fedora, whether that
> > is the actual writing of code, release engineering, testing, etc.;
> >
> > * Legal expenses of running a Foundation;
> >
> > * Administrative expenses of running a Foundation.
> >

No doubt that running such a service is expensive.

> > The simple and honest answer: Red Hat *must* maintain a certain amount of
> > control over Fedora decisions, because Red Hat's business model *depends*
> > upon Fedora.  Red Hat contributes millions of dollars in staff and
> > resources to the success of Fedora, and Red Hat also accepts all of the
> > legal risk for Fedora.  Therefore, Red Hat will sometimes need to make
> > tough decisions about Fedora.  We won't do it often, and when we do, we
> > will discuss the rationale behind such decisions as openly as we can -- as
> > we did with the recent Mono decision.

Agreed, within reason.  It is my wish that RedHat persue operating
systems deployment in a way that allows open development with in kind
sharing of code base but avoid becoming a "Microsoft" of the Open
Source community.  Backing the Fedora Project(s) is a strong way to
obtain "best of breed" development and still participate in open
source without having to "pass on all the costs" to clients wishing to
pursue RHEL inliu of Fedora.

However some development cycles need tighter release control -- like
the Kernel for example (not that I am picking on any one particular
portion of this past FC5 testing cycle.)   Are people running FC
installations truly in earnest of implementing software so quickly? 
Seems like another software outfit liked to push testing of their core
OpSys out onto the end users shoulders.  But, maybe I have become
blinded to the greater SDLC.

> > The most important promise about Fedora -- once free, always free -- still
> > stands.  We aim to set the standard for open source innovation.  A truly
> > open Fedora Project is what makes that possible.

Free until the "best of breed" projects are pulled into RHEL and then
what?  A code split?  Maybe this is where my understanding of Fedora's
relationship to RHEL breaks down...
--
WC (Bill) Jones -- http://youve-reached-the.endoftheinternet.org/