On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2010/10/27 Máirín Duffy <duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> 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. > > People were thinking that "oh, no, the Board is being the blocker > here, they won't let us go forward with this", when in actuality, the > thought process was more of "we don't think that anyone is going to > have the time to do this, but if they do, more power to them, and > let's prevent this from happening in the future". The second part is > the rationale for implementing and then waiving the schedule > requirements - the Board wanted to allow plenty of time for resource > allocation within rel-eng (or a decision that a resource would not be > allocated, we can't compel rel-eng to do anything). However, it seemed > slightly unfair to create an ex post facto policy about scheduling and > say "well, you didn't meet X schedule, so you're out!". > > I hope that makes things slightly clearer. I know all that. That does not make anything more clear. The way the decision was made, communicated (I had to ask twice!) and basically punted to another group to make IS NOT CLEAR. It doesn't matter what the intentions were behind how this was communicated. The Board failed to give a direct answer to a direct question, again, because they were worried about saying the dreaded and horrible word No. josh _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
