With the recent transition from the base package group to the base meta package, I was wondering whether or not it would be useful to include a 'base-typical' or 'base-standard' package group to the installation media. The menu choices during an installation could possible be even more expansive in its package group options, similar to how RHEL does it via their 'environment' package groups (e.g. Minimal Install, Compute Node, Infrastructure Server, GNOME Desktop, etc.).
For example, each alternative package group could *include* the base meta package, then add in the additional packages necessary for a particular use case, (not least of which would be a kernel). The advantage would be that, after installing the system, users would have the option to cherry pick *out* unnecessary/unwanted packages from their chosen installation package group, instead of having to cherry pick packages *into* their system as would likely be necessary using only the base meta package. It seems like many new and inexperienced users might become confused when they install a new system using only the current base meta package and then realizing they don't have the necessary tools they would normally assume comprises a base installation (i.e. a kernel, editor, etc.).
Additionally, 'pkgstats' could (at least temporarily) be included as a dependency for both the base meta package and any optional base package groups to get stats on how many users are solely installing the base meta package versus the optional base package group alternatives. I'm guessing only a minority of users would choose the base meta package as their sole installation option, but it would probably be useful to know either way.