On 12/13/06, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/13/06, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > And so the 4th option which no one loves is: > 4. slip and hope that we can get the newer one fixed. > > Does that sum up a lot of what happens when fedora slips a release? > The fact is we need to plan on being flexible. Rigid rules will not work with our current release methods. As long as we're smart about what's going on during the test cycles we'll be in good shape. I think it would also be good to give 2 or 3 people veto power during the test freezes so that if feature X will cause a huge issue there's not a time-wasting argument about whether or not it gets in.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for inflexible rules, I'm arguing for the group to discuss *goals* and flexible standards now, and appoint owners/deciders, so that when the deciders have to decide under pressure at the end of the cycle, their decision is quick, efficient, and reasonably matches up with the policies and goals of the larger group- i.e., it is as close to correct as one can get under the circumstances. Luis _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
