• Consider collapsing three developer cases into a single developer use case, with subbullets to emphasize variations among them?
• Should there be a general purpose use case in the list? I'm thinking of all the non-developer folks who make Fedora happen who are also using Fedora Workstation.
• Should the goal to be a polished and user friendly system that appeals to a wide general audience be promoted (higher in the target audience body) since it applies to all use cases?
• Should dual boot be explicitly mentioned? QA has long had an explicit final release criterion for this that includes Windows and macOS but omits any other Linux distro, including working dual/multi-boot for different Fedora versions. Maybe it's too much detail for a PRD?
• VM's mentioned three times, but we've contemplated removing GNOME Boxes from the default installation. What roll does a Virtual Machine play going forward? Is it a variation on dual/multiboot?
• Should we mention the high level efforts around system responsiveness (a nod toward resource control, cgroups, full preemption) as a differentiator from desktopized servers?
• Combine robust ugprades and better upgrades?
• Rollback control is something Silverblue has achieved; Btrfs makes it cheap and reliable to do transactional updates, but should it be a requirement? Could it help with or obviate other ideas (recovery partitions, rescue boot menu option, system reset)?
• Delivery mechanism - drop ISO 9660 images? Make our default image persistent when imaged to a USB stick (with optional reset), ready to use for VMs?
  https://bkhome.org/news/202112/why-iso-was-retired.html

I've created https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qqidnMemWgDxJtJpyCaV1NkKRV883G8GHAh4rES9QtI/edit which is basically the old PRD put into a newer template (that was used by Server edition). Feel free to comment and edit the document.

We've made some progress on the PRD and reworked it a bit - please take a look before Tuesday's meeting - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qqidnMemWgDxJtJpyCaV1NkKRV883G8GHAh4rES9QtI/edit#heading=h.w9b28e7au0kp

This was discussed at last week's WG meeting on 15 March. Comments can be seen here: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2022-03-15/workstation.2022-03-15-18.35.log.html

There are a few more people that we want to get feedback from. Once that's done we'll hopefully be able to approve the new PRD in the next couple of weeks.

@tpopela have been through the draft PRD and think that it's ready to go forward. The next step is for the working group to review and approve it, before we send it on to Fedora Council.

Once it's approved by the WG, we can move it from the Google Doc to our own docs pages.

Tagging this for the next meeting. Please review in advance of the meeting. @tpopela is the March 2022 draft link above still the latest version?

@chrismurphy yes, it is! (and I replace March with May there, thanks for spotting it).

This has been approved by the working group by unanimous consent (+6).

https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/workstation/workstation.2022-05-24-18.40.log.html

Reopening this ticket, until it's been approved by council, and the text has been put somewhere more permanent.

There have been a couple of feedback items in the Council discussion thread, for which I've made suggested changes in the Google Doc. It would be good if the WG can sign off on these changes.

I am +1 to the proposed changes.

Council have approved the new PRD, so the only action remaining is to move the document to our docs, and then link to it from some places. It might also be nice to publicise the new PRD once it's in place.

I added the new PRD to the workstation docs. Just waiting to check that it builds OK on the server: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/workstation-working-group/

Once this has happened, we should also update the old PRD wiki page with a link to the new version.

All done.