On 21.03.2007 12:08, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:20:22 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > [...] >> FESCo was good (but still far from perfect) in getting the community >> involved, as it had influence in certain decisions and meets in the >> open. > Different than that. It had started as a group with the desire to move > several things forward at the Extras front *actively*, which included > boring but necessary tasks. > > Red Hat in turn made a few allowances for FESCo in order to remove some > road blocks. A necessity. Else Extras would not have taken off. I wouldn't > call the result "influence", though. The influence is mostly by a very few > individuals, who sponsor hardware and access to it or who make things > happen inside Red Hat. Well, I think you are painting it more worse than it is, but I agree that you have some points in between it. >> With the merge happening now it seem FESCo seems to me much less >> important then before; to much small to medium stuff gets simply done >> without even bothering to ask FESCo -- that's a fault IMHO. A lot of >> medium to big stuff gets directly taken to the board -- FESCo afaics >> often gets circumvented, even if the tasks are engeneering tasks. And >> that's what FESCo is for afaics. > FESCo fails to define its field of activity. The moved Wiki pages for the > new FESCo don't add any description, The thing important for me is: it seems the pages were simply moved, without asking the public or FESCo for opinions first. Yes, the topic was discussed once in the public some weeks earlier (without a real outcome), but now it was simply done afaics, without even discussing FESCo first. Was such a hectic really necessary? Side note: I think the moving in general was a good idea, but how it was done without asking or announcing it beforehand was simply bad bad bad. I think even a board member should be a bit more careful and ask the proper committee (in this case FESCo) and the public for opinions before doing such a major task. Sure, simply doing stuff is easier often. But people that operate in "heads down, I don't care what other people think and do my way without asking the public or committees that are responsible for it because that is painful work" is as far as I can see not the way to get a community interested in Fedora. > but are still in CategoryExtras, and > it seems FESCo just picks random things that pop up here and there. There > is no hint as whether any group still leads Extras -- trying to remove the > word "Extras" everywhere is not the full show. Agreed. > What I'm missing is the regular presence of FESCo or its members in > official day-to-day decisions and state-of-the-union addresses, so the > community of contributors gets the feeling that there is some kind of > leadership actually. Instead, it has increasingly become a sit-and-wait > process, where hardly anyone seems to care about some things until > somebody else complains. Agreed. > It also takes too long to create a low-traffic announce list, where to > reach package maintainers actually. fedora-maintainers apparently is not > the place where to reach them. Cross-posts to at least -devel, -extras and > -maintainers are way too popular. Annoying. Surely the reason is that > hardly anyone knows what the purpose of those lists is. Well, I don't > either, looking at the thread index. Well, the list fedora-maintainers-announce actually exists, we just don't use it (and even worse -- there are people questing is usefulness...). > When I remember how often we've practised preparing Extras for the next > release of Core, I believe this time we perform badly. We have Matt > Domsch's rebuild reports, the broken deps report, the broken upgrade paths > report, a FE7Target tracker bug filled with lots of bugs. Are any of the > reports on the mailing-lists evaluated by anybody in FESCo? It's > interesting, for instance, that Zope and Plone, which are in the broken > upgrade paths report for a very long time, don't support Python 2.5. Yet > Extras bugzilla did not cover that. Huh? So: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/233187 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/233185 > > Nearly all the other upgrade path problems were not in bugzilla when I had > a look yesterday. A big bunch now is in the FE7Target tracker, at least. > Several I've fixed myself, but ACLs block access to other packages. I'm > disappointed that FESCo (with 'E' as in Extras) in no longer involved in > trying to reduce crap in the distribution, not even with a roll call. > I don't mind the AWOL process, which I've tried with one maintainer I'm > unable to reach for several weeks. But we're at test3. Time is getting > short if we still want to offer something that doesn't bear too much of a > risk of confronting users with broken deps and non-working components -- > especially after Eric Raymonds complaints about [albeit house-made] > dependency problems in Fedora-land. Yeah, you have some point here. CU thl _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
