Quoting Jim Popovitch <jimpop@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 08:54 -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: > > What exactly do you expect us to accomplish is two days? > > Some discussion about the message not the delivery. I've tried. You keep moving the conversation off topic with new arguments about all kinds of different things. > > Maybe if you put together a "TODO" list for us of things you'd like to > > see done? A start might be: > > > > * Set up a communications structure to notify the community of important > events > > * Create a backup plan should Jesse get run over by a bus > > * Write some documentation about things unrelated to the project like the > > production quality of various RHL and FC releases. > > * Write some docs about using Bugzilla (may have to wait until Bugzilla > > conversion from fedora.us to redhat.com). > > That's funny, some of those are the very things I *have* already listed. No, it's not funny. What I was trying to do was make a TODO list based on your postings and the responses to them. What would be funny would be if none of your points showed up on my list. > I guess you were too busy complaining about me complaining to have > noticed. What? I tried to make a TODO list of what you and others wanted done. A TODO list is a list of short descriptions of what needs to be done. What you submitted was paragraph after paragraph of stuff. That isn't a TODO list. What I've asked you to do is to try to make a TODO list containing what you want done. And to help you, I started one including the ideas from the mailing list from the last couple of days. What I expect from you and others is not to insult me or my list, but to help improve it. To add entries I've missed, clarify entries I've not made clear, delete things if they can't be done for some reason. > I did say that there needed to be more structure, and I asked Jesse to > NOT work on future builds until he set this up. Okay, that won't work. First, you need to define the type of structure you want to see. We can't just read your mind and setup a structure to meet your needs without your help. Saying we need structure doesn't really help any. We already have structure. If you don't like the structure, you need to define how it is insufficient, not just say we "need structure." Second, we can't stop a project like this (stop delivering the goods) because one person isn't happy with our structure. That would be like Red Hat stopping all support for RHEL because myself and some people I know don't like their structure (and we don't). But others have agreed with the structure, and Red Hat must keep delivering to them, not matter what my friends and I may think. They can make structural changes while still delivering the product. > I did ask for better documentation about the processes and procedures, > and not just better docs but more clarification so that more people can > actually do things to help out. Okay, you want "better documentation about the process and procedures" but I really don't know what that means. Can you define what you mean in simple, bullet type style? I'm confused how you separate "better docs" from "more clarification so that more people can actually do things to help out." The point of better docs would be to clarify things, no? > -Jim P. You seem determined to thwart any progress on the issues you have raised. I simply don't understand your tactics. -- Eric Rostetter -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
