On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 14:27, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:42:32 -0500, > Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> >> ... >> > My only questions left here are: >> > 1) Does anyone think we should just implement what we have so far and >> > hold off on the Board's vision for now? >> >> Yes, I'm in favor of this... Let's give the recently implemented >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_acceptance_criteria >> some time, and see how effective it functions to improve the overall update >> experience. > > I agree that we should get that stuff deployed ASAP. But that really only > addresses very obviously broken stuff. It isn't really the same as the > stable updates policy. > _______________________________________________ Baby steps please. If this doesn't even 'find and fix' the obvious broken stuff then why go further with it. If it does find and fix only sometimes then it needs fixing before going to the next. If it works fine and has side effects of fixing other issues then why add to it. In the end, this and all other items are technical fixes which rarely (that I am aware of) fix personnel issues. As long as certain people fly off the handle just because another person is in the room, no amount of policies, procedures, and technology is going to make it better. -- Stephen J Smoogen. “The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.” Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things."" — Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
