On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 00:29 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 03.09.2007 16:40, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >>> IOW: if the professional part and their people that were responsible for > >>> putting the boring paperwork in place should have an open ear and react > >>> quickly to comments like "you made the workflow harder" or "I'm not as > >>> effective as before" to keep the spare-time-contributors happy, as they > >>> are doing some good work as well -- thus the professional part should > >>> not risk to loose or burn them. > >> This distinction is false. Luke worked on Bodhi voluntarily too. Very > >> few people are working on Fedora full time. > > > > I beg to differ -- Luke is not *responsible* for putting that boring > > paperwork put in place, so it's IMHO not his fault. Those that wanted > > bodhi are either paid for working on Fedora or members of FESCo afaics ACK, therefore, it's them who are responsible and it's them who therefore now should demonstrate their will to take responsibility and take action. > If you are referring to Bodhi are "boring paperwork", it was put up > there to manage the repository after the merge. The merge brings in > additional policies in place include freezes, actually having a > announcement associated with an update which explains why you are > pushing that update to the end user, pushing updates to updates-testing, > closing relevant bugs etc. These might all be boring but necessary > changes. Wrong. Somebody decided _THEY_ wanted it, because _THEY_ think this bureaucracy is necessary and _THEY_ proceeded with it, because _THEY_ had the powers to implement it. FE had lived long enough to demonstrate it could prosper and live without this blown-up overhead. > AFAIK, this was done because the people involved believed that > the advantages of a merge outweighs the short term disadvantages of > having newer tools in place which might require improvements. Well, I had hoped the merger to provide benefits. Meanwhile, I am through a learning curve and think doubts are justified. > If you > have got any alternative solutions now that we are where we are, list > them. That is better than figuring out where to assign blame. Wouldn't the solution would be obvious? * RH to assign a couple of payed people to improve the existing system. * Those people who are responsible for pushing the existing systems, to actively improve the existing systems. * Some volunteers to step in. >From a volunteering community contributor's POV, the situation wrt. bodhi and the release process actually is quite simple: * It's "THEM" who want it, so it's "THEM" who are in charge of it. * If it isn't sufficiently usable, contributions will suffer. As a long term contributor to Fedora I can not avoid to add: Contributing has never been such kind of complicated and bureaucratic before, ever. Also, I find it really bewildering what an amount of fuzz my request is causing. Seems to me, as if I have touch a sacro-saint taboo :/ Actually I had expected "THE bodhi maintainer" to step up and answer "Will look into it ..." - instead, ... Ralf -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
