On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/26/2010 08:26 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> === Remaining issues for approval of the multi desktop DVD (ticket #88) === >>> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Media_Handout_Requirements (kudos to Matt) >>> * If $SOMEBODY in RELENG hypothetically willing take responsibility for >>> rel-engineering of this, and if requirements are met, are we approving >>> for F14? >>> * (Jon) seems awful late to do it. Perhaps one of the criteria should be >>> timing? >>> * (Smooge) how about putting timing after this... if it's not done by >>> Alpha... it shouldn't happen >>> * (Spot) should be a schedule milestone? >>> * (Jon) we're past feature freeze, this is a feature >>> * (Mizmo) - example of changing things past alpha, makes it more >>> difficult for supporting materials on the website, docs, etc. >>> * (Spot) (1) should there be a timing requirement in these guidelines? >>> ... yes from my POV (Rex agrees) (2) Do we give an exception in this >>> specific case as there were no guidelines in place when it was put together? >>> * (Jared) If it's built on our infrastructure, if $STRAWMAN is okay >>> helping getting it built & hosted on our infrastructure.... in this >>> specific case if they meet all requirements outside of schedule/timing, >>> then yes they can move forward. >>> * (Mizmo) added a requirement to the doc for Fedora Design Team produced >>> artwork & explicitly adding schedule requirement that will be waived for >>> this particular request. >>> * Conclusion - Jared will talk to Christoph about our decision. >> >> Reading this summary, I can't really decipher what that overall >> decision was. Could someone please just list a one line summary of > > My own impression (others feel free to correct me), was that, in > general, if the following criteria were met, > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Media_Handout_Requirements > then the board is satisified. Those criteria are still listed as Draft. Odd. I note that rel-eng commitment is part of that criteria. I am not in a position to speak for rel-eng, but given the pending release I very much doubt that rel-eng will commit to doing this spin for F14. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Also, it said the media targets must be approved by Beta. The multi-spin, uh, spin was not available at Beta. Further, it did not have a test plan approved by Fedora QA. Realistically speaking, I don't believe QA has the resources to be involved in the writing of test plans for every spin wishing to produce media. They continue to have enough trouble with the default spins. However, the criteria as listed are not met for the multi-image DVD. Accordingly, this spin is not approved for F14 due to the lack of approval from all parties and failure to meet the criteria. Is that an accurate description of what the Board decided? If so, why couldn't the Board just clearly state that? As an aside, I strenuously object to the requirement of "Fedora themed boot screens, or not boot screens at all." There is no rationale listed for this requirement and it prevents spins from offering a spin influenced variant of artwork (think the default screen, but with a KDE logo). Most importantly, it precludes the use of the generic artwork that is freely available, thereby preventing the proliferation of his AWESOME BEEFY-NESS, the Hot Dog Guy. I find this a travesty. I strongly urge the Board to reconsider this requirement, with preference on removing it entirely. josh _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
