Hey Paul, On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-12-17 > > == Roll Call == > * '''Present:''' Paul Frields, Christopher Aillon, Josh Boyer, Dimitris Glezos, Bill Nottingham, John Poelstra, Jon McCann, Tom "spot" Callaway, Matt Domsch, Mike McGrath, Dennis Gilmore > > == Last meeting == > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Meeting:Board_meeting_2009-12-10 > > == Updates/Installs presentation == > * William Jon McCann -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JonMccann > * Co-presenter: Christopher Aillon > ** pointed back to whiteboard link: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience with new added "Impact" section with information from stakeholders > ** document doesn't present implementation, but records opinions garnered from current contributors and stakeholders > * General Board consensus is that we do need to establish criteria for updates, and empower FESCo to enforce them > * Lots of spirited discussion around various details of the proposal, with conversation that covered a lot of different issues but the Board is not ready to issue hard guidance yet > ** Unclear to what extent current pending changes (NFR, AutoQA) will impact any Fedora user's update experience, or how these changes are currently incorporated in the whiteboard > ** The whiteboard correctly identifies several problems but it's not clear that it completely lists root causes > ACTION: > # Enumerate the problems that need to be solved -- as explicitly as possible, no focus on solutions > #* Suggested method, repetitive "why" to make sure we're identifying the right root causes > #* On list, get owners for each problem from the Board side > # Then solicit ideas for proposed solutions > > == Next meeting == > * Thu Jan 07 2009 - 1700 UTC/12:00pm US Eastern (public IRC) OK, so who is going to be responsible for following through on these actions? There are a few things I'd really like to get some clarification on as well. In the meeting it was claimed that focusing on the user experience was a "red herring." It was also stated that the Fedora project thinks a broken rawhide is not only a necessity due to lack of QA resources but also desirable because it follows from our goals of being first and fast. It was also stated that since we have a community to test rawhide and give us feedback when it is broken we don't have to test it beforehand. It was also stated that we've moved to a system where we no longer compose rawhide but push out new builds as they arrive and that should be what people are testing. There was also some disagreement between board members about what the role of the board even is. Some stated that they shouldn't be discussing implementation details and others said they shouldn't be setting goals without first determining what the implementation details are. Huh? Also, do you have an audio copy or transcript of the meeting? I think that might be of interest to some people. Anyway, I very much appreciate the invitation to address the board. I feel like I didn't do a very good job of conveying the desires of all the stateholders with whom I discussed these ideas. We had a talk and discussion group at FUDCon and I think there was overwhelming support for the ideas in the whiteboard (except for the one person who refused to discuss the issue when I asked to talk about it). I think I let them all down by not explaining how setting these goals will be extremely beneficial for Fedora. Thanks, Jon _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
