As in, "meta" as in, something that others could easily take the
packages from (a core distribution, based off only the upstream
sources with only branding patches/etc, not adding anything else like
we do) and tailoring it to their specific needs (like we do)

Each major spin has its own niche:

-CentOS = additional QA layered on top of the presumed QA RH already
did, being as close to the actual product as possible
-Scientific = More open, built more as a meta-distribution for other
labs (and hence, also offers more science/mathematics stuff), not 100%
like RHEL but close enough for mainstream
-Oracle = So you can layer support from them on top of support for
their own products. Also offers an alternate, newer, "unbreakable"
kernel, with their own changes (alongside the upstream one)

Even Troy has outed CentOS for its development process not being
"open" enough (which is a flaw that has been all but exposed to the
world by the 6.0 debacle we are currently in). What we're wanting to
do is a generic RHEL remake (more like CentOS) with a more open,
community-oriented development process, pooling our resources together
for a common good that can benefit us all. Like, a co-operative. By
living in Saskatchewan for over a year, you know how important banding
together is. Every other grocery store/gas station/etc is a Co-op,
when you spend there as a member, you get profits back every year.
Everyone rallies around Regina's CFL team since they're practically
the Green Bay Packers of the league -- publicly owned, with lots of
fan support province-wide. Even the recent flooding has brought us
together.

tl;dr Together, we can make the EL world a better place.

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:19 AM, R P Herrold <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Shawn Thompson wrote:
>
>> While we haven't quite ironed out the details, I am presuming this:
>>
>> -This would basically be what CentOS would be like if it had a
>> community model more like ours.
>> -Most likely, we will strive to be 100% compatible with RHEL.
>
> .... that sounds like CentOS to me ;)
>
>>> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Shawn Thompson wrote:
>
>>>> ... has proposed the formation of a  community
>>>> consortium to help develop a common "meta-distribution" ...
>
> I have no idea how some new: 'common "meta-distribution"' can also be: '100%
> compatible with RHEL'
>
> Could you please elucidate what you are seeking to create?
>
> -- Russ herrold
>