On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:01:35PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > > We could do that in some sort of subcommittee. However, if there is supposed > > > to be technical review for appropriateness, notification of other people that > > > might be affected, coordination, and so on, I'm not sure that delegating it > > > to someone who's primarily process-and-tracking oriented is best. > > > > > Ideas: > > * Have the Feature Wrangler assemble a team > > * As you say, have a subcommittee that deals with it > > * Similarly, form a SIG (with a seed committee from FESCo) to deal with it. > > * Have the Feature Wrangler make decisions on some of the checkpoints -- > > while the initial submission of the feature is supposed to give fesco > > a chance to say, no, don't do this at all because it's technically a bad > > idea, Feature Freeze is intended to be there to ensure the feature has > > reached testable state which is more about tracking and > > tracking and? > > These are all decent ideas - any chance you want to pick the one you like > best and write it up? My main objection was just to delegating to the > singular wrangler. > Well, I was in a hurry to finish this up and sent it off without completing this section. I've drafted up a pair of complementary proposals for you: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Feature_Process_%28draft%29 Hopefully they don't suffer from the same problems. Feel free to revise, consult with the Feature Wrangler, QA, and modify that to your heart's content. I'm not currently on FESCo so the Feature Process doesn't impact me much. But if I ever am on it again, I'd hope that we could put something like that into place to save us some time. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpTNaQhvLc3h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
