2010/10/27 Máirín Duffy <duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 22:19 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> 2010/10/27 Máirín Duffy <duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > Would you feel better if the Board said "not approved for F14"? >> >> Yes, absolutely. >> >> > We felt >> > bad because there weren't guidelines in place when we were asked, but I >> > hope the requestors are under no illusions that this is anything but a >> > late-in-the-cycle request. >> >> You felt bad, so you drafted requirements, and waived half of them? >> That is not straight-forward at all. >> >> > If anyone is afraid of blame please place the blame on me. It's my fault >> > if this doesn't ship for F14. Nobody should be blaming rel-eng for >> > *anything* here, nor setting them up to be blamed. >> >> It has nothing to do with placing blame. It has everything to do with >> the Board answering a direct question with a direct answer. IMHO, >> that answer should have been: >> >> "This request is being made too late in the development cycle to be >> approved for F14. However, the Board recognizes that we lack clear >> and concise criteria around such request and will be addressing this >> shortly to close this gap for future releases." > > We sort of said this in the discussion on this list before the board > meeting minutes we're discussing and were met with a lot of protest. So? You're telling a person that wants to do something that the project isn't in a state to actually get that done. Of course they're going to protest. That doesn't mean the Board would be wrong saying that. josh _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
