-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi!
On 23.01.2014 22:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis > <fed...@leemhuis.info> wrote: >> On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What >>> else should be included? What different directions should we >>> consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome than ever in >>> the coming year? >> Okay, I'll bite (after thinking whether writing this mail is >> worth it): > Hey Thorsten! Glad you did. ;) :) >> I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But >> more and more I tend to the latter position and wonder if it >> might be wise to slow things down: Do one more Fedora release the >> old style in round about June; that would give us more time to >> better discuss and work out Fedora.next and get contributors >> involved better in the planing. > This is not practical. Lots of people are thinking about a > fedora.next, qa folks are coding away, lots of people who normally > would be working on the next release are not. If we tell them to > stop all that and go back to normal, we could, but then fedora.next > will likely never ever happen. Understood, but OTOH it makes me wonder if Fedora.next is a step to big and needs to be split or something. > [...] The current problem I have with Fedora.next is that it's so > abstract. I understand that people who like PRD's and TPS want high > level descriptions of what we want to do with goals and visions and > such, and thats great. However, I'm a technical person. I like > concrete plans and pushing what we can do with the technology we > have at hand, or helping to make new technology to do what we want. > +1 you found really good words for what's a big part of the problem I have with Fedora.next > We are now down to the point where groups have written up their > PRD documents, and can get down to details. So, I am hopeful in the > next month or so we will gain a lot more interest in fedora.next > and more feedback as concrete deliverables are discussed, etc. > > That is my hope at least... we will see. :) Yeah, we'll see :D Your words otoh scratched another thought in my head: The PRD documents (and some of the other docs around Fedora.next) in great length talk a lot about "how" they want to do something. That up to a point is needed obviously. But sometimes I miss a few introductions words on the "why" we want all of that and how it's supposed to make Fedora better. But that's obviously meta/abstract again, which I myself criticized earlier. So maybe it's simply this ted talk that stuck in my head too much: http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html Cu knurd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJS46KJAAoJEHK25u9MWD0tf8oQAKamRcqVt8XTbh8TmjfWxqqc AeP5MVmJnhE9TEbgsenZUex0xo3dnRaU9prdF/delAVgL7ahCbIPWgKtKT3IsqsA GHygf8d046PM2+z8lFH8IAinK5KhikmRki/xS+3IknHEPWUKmGcFtIG13L2C32w/ VEZ+/IF70NEa2xe7jtg0QzH4uungZfVH6Gsl2WcsjnjC0BiqU5vkVjdDWKWCt+GD taAL5pNbO1TsuAhnNa4PL/eHJehEGUo1UrLv4FDnPFLm4v6Wex9VScd6Z2XQ6VLu I2Lw5RqU5m0kNPa5k4+gEABqDrqObK6Q+akwX/c97Tcus52SwmIQA4yHGHsIQy2c hSeg/mQyzZHabob909EPu2y6/m49uEpmU8sgb7QqQzIk77rKaUQrGloPSOTrAs6j TSMtZX/DkF6VZIBATSTtOJD7pL3jvCWOb66ueA+MJqGZdB3WiuB7En+9JTrhjYSe mEs9KORkYgyQniVTlhtVG9tu8/OFvt8ud+iq+FlAVzyHAfDofpC+w7WnkSSn3Mit wEEgsvuYx630z+HY2+aBBViU+/11D1G8lVBJqGINogPRxopTpN9EPCbvAOnHmwd3 iOqsPzsUjZCviXasjIrrj91QDXduS/N3sFCam1dq2CqXF692ampEzAfavu/VX9yB jfSdBXA1/7Vk/MLXgB6E =BoBF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
