Fedora-Council/tickets ticket #402: Approve updated Fedora Workstation PRD

@aday filed Fedora-Council/tickets ticket #402. Discuss here and record votes and decisions in the ticket.

Ticket text:

1 Like

@aday I’ve read it quickly and I like it overall. I’ll give it a more thorough read-through later. For now, the main issue I see is a quibble with the vision statement. The opening clause reads

That’s not quite vision-y. Also, is Workstation the one doing the creating? Arguably, it’s more curation than creation. So maybe something like “Fedora Workstation envisions an open world where developers and creators can easily make new and exciting things with accessible digital platforms.”

My other question is what do we mean by “developer workstation”? That’s a phrase we (I’m including myself here) use a lot, but I don’t know if I could define it. It’s not super critical, but since you’re updating the PRD, now might be a good time to give it an explicit—even if cursory—definition.

1 Like

Thanks for the review, @bcotton . I like your proposal for the vision statement - I can see what the other members of the WG think about that.

I’ll also see about adding a more explicit developer workstation definition. Most of the required material is already present - it’ll just need a little tweaking.

1 Like

I do like the @bcotton’s proposal as well :slight_smile:

I’ve now updated the PRD doc to address Ben’s feedback. The Workstation WG has approved these changes.

I finally gave it a more detailed read. Apart from one suggestion in the doc where Workstation should be capitalized, I think it’s great. You included plenty of coherent detail and it’s very obvious where the WG sees this going over the next few years.

The only thing I notice is that there’s no mention of Silverblue or rpm-ostree. My understanding is that it is the (or a) plan to eventually have Silverblue be the default workstation offering. Is that not the case? Or is it just an implementation detail for the strategy outlined in the PRD?

1 Like

From my point of view it’s just an implementation detail - it was actually mentioned in one of the comments when we were drafting the new PRD - we don’t want to bound ourselves by specific technologies - for the PRD it’s more important to have the goal set even without specifying how to get there.


I’ve fixed that capitalization issue. :smiley:

@council, any further thoughts here? We have the three +1 votes for approval and no objections, but want to make sure we don’t miss anyone.

I don’t hear any objections…