Hi Josh, On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 21:28 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > Those criteria are still listed as Draft. Odd. I'm not sure why the draft status wasn't removed. > > 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? See this line: "(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." So the Board basically doesn't have issues with this media moving forward as long as it follows the requirements outside of the waived scheduling/timing requirements. So it is approved if it meets those requirements - and there's a possibility someone on releng could agree to help it out. > 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. I'm a little confused about this though. Anybody is free, of course, to produce awesome royal beefy-ness spins, but is it appropriate for those to be produced using funding provided by Fedora to promote Fedora? ~m _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
