@Matthew
> First, let's replace Fedora Server as a user-focused artifact with CentOS
> Stream. There's still a need for a Fedora Server as an upstream, but most
> users of Fedora as a server are making custom builds (or using the basic
> Cloud image), not using Fedora Server per se. So, I think we should stop
> marketing that to users, and steer people with server use cases outside of
> the fast-moving niche to CentOS Stream. The current story of CentOS and
> Fedora is pretty confusing to users, and Stream only makes it more so. Let's
> simplify things!
I rather enjoy using Fedora on servers. I'm concerned that steering users away
from this use case sends a bad message. It's a common misconception that it's
a bad idea to use Fedora on servers. I'd rather the project itself not
implicitly agree with this.
My personal preference would be for Fedora Server and CentOS Stream to be
presented as equally attractive options and let users choose the one that suits
their needs. Perhaps the marketing for both could cross reference each other.
Fedora Server's marketing could say something like "If you're concerned about
the fast release cycle of Fedora, CentOS Stream may be more to your liking".
CentOS Stream's marketing could say something like "If you need newer versions
of core packages, you may consider Fedora Server".
> Second, where there's overlap, let's look at merging Fedora and CentOS SIGs
> into joint bodies. We have groups like the cloud image SIGs which are
> basically doing the exact same thing in two different ways. Same thing with
> containers. We also have huge overlaps in documentation and community user
> support and all sorts of non-technical project areas. I'm not saying these
> all need to be smooshed together, but where it makes sense let's work
> together. This, too, brings simplification to the "what's with CentOS vs.
> Fedora" story: rather than making contributors pick, we can welcome all with
> open arms.
I *love* this idea. We could rebrand them as "Red Hat Community SIGs" that
operate in both the Fedora and CentOS communities. I think CentOS SIGs could
learn a lot from how Fedora SIGs operate.
@Neal
> In concept, I certainly see value in bringing CentOS and Fedora
> closer. However, I think eliminating Fedora variants in favor of
> CentOS Stream ones (aka rhel-rawhide based variants) is probably
> premature.
You raised some great points. I want to reiterate this part of Matthew's
original email:
"...in this next decade..."
I think it's reasonable to believe we can address the concerns you raised
within the next 10 years. Your feedback (and everyone else's) is critical to
getting us there, so thank you for sharing it.
@Jim and Neal
> > So, what this long email is actually saying is that I think it's an
> > interesting idea to bring the two projects together, but eliminating
> > aspects of Fedora in favor of CentOS is premature because CentOS has
> > not actually developed as a community project. Maybe it's worth
> > revisiting after six years of actual community development?
>
> I disagree a bit here. I think it's worth discussing, and I think it's
> worth being clear about what the expectations are both for Stream, and
> Fedora Server.
>
> I think we should have the conversation (possibly again) about what we
> want from Fedora Server. Is it serving the purpose originally
> envisioned. Should that continue to be the purpose for it, etc.
I think you're both right. I don't want Fedora Server to be eliminated, but I
do believe we should have a clear understanding of how they overlap and how
they differ in order to present them appropriately to the community.