100%
Anyone who’s done engineering knows that plans shift as you get into the thick of it and run into issues where you need to do a little extra flexibility in an area you didn’t intend. Even without bad intentions, people run into situations were… “if we just changed this thing we rely on, just a little bit over here, it’d make life so much easier”. That’s the nature of development, and it happens all the time.
But when the initial plan is worded in a vague way as Adam mentioned, and only later clarified further down the thread, while the proposal remains un-updated, it’s makes it all the more concerning, because we know the edges of any plan get adjusted over time.
And when we don’t see any clearly defined edges, and we see them rubbing up against very important Fedora Principles… people are going to get antsy.
(FWIW, I assume Gordon will post an updated plan when he’s able, so hopefully this will get rectified)
While I cant speak for anyone else, I think there are people who read this that came to the initial same impressions, that as written the original proposal mentioned things that… to our understanding of whats written… seem to if not outright-violate Fedora principles… they definitely seem to bend them.
As I have said, I would love for a Fedora based OS/Container/Remix/whatever to exist, and I’m interest in pitching in to make that a reality. However, I also want to make sure we keep Fedora true to what Fedora is. Fedora is, IMHO, unique in its principles and the length that it’s maintained them. Even when it results in personal effort on my part to integrate proprietary things, I don’t want to see Fedora change what it is.