Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
We've beaten that horse during FUDCon and the Spins Process is now
separate from the Feature Process, although with the primary features of
the Feature Process such as Freezes and Wrangling.
Such decisions shouldn't be taken at FUDCon because it automatically
excludes people who cannot be present at the event. You should use the
events only to discuss the issues and make the decisions over mailing
lists or irc where others can participate as well.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by abusing FUDCon like this (in your
opinion), but let me tell you I'll do it again whenever I feel like it.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you were abusing
FUDCon. It is a general principle to be inclusive of everyone in the
community as much as possible. That means, not making decisions in a
place where many people just cannot attend to state their arguments or
present alternative view points.
Everyone involved was there, everyone agreed. This process is set.
Sorry. no. Not everyone involved was there and unlikely to ever be.
There are many spin maintainers and spin SIG members not present at FUDCon.
Arguments go to the list. Voting happens next week during the SIG meeting.
If you have a problem with that, please state it. Please be precise in
what you think we've done so tremendously wrong, that our ability to
make a decision, gather input and then have a vote on the result
deserves to be questioned, by you no less.
because although I do understand your argument against deciding stuff at
FUDCon, I do not understand what is your problem with how things are
moving forward right now.
A bunch of people went ahead and made some decisions in FUDCon and when
others raises their concern over that decision and decision making
process, you are being unnecessarily abrasive and dismissive about it.
I don't want decisions being made without being communicated at all in
some random location in the world. If you make a decision, do it over
mailing lists or on less preferably on irc ( after announcing ahead of
time) where people involved or concerned can present their opinions.
FUDCon should be just for discussions.
The problem with this whole process is not FESCo didn't want the spins
to be considered features but how it has been not been delegated
properly and who is responsible for the final decisions is still
unclear. Ideally, FESCo would have still considered spins as features so
that spin maintainers have a procedure to follow up until the time,
alternative procedure and a owner/team responsible for the final
decision is outlined somewhere.
- Define "this" in "The problem with this whole process", because I
don't understand which process you are referring to.
The spins process or lack of clarity in one.
- Explain to me how "The Spin SIG for technical approval and the Board
for a rubber trademark stamp" leaves you inconclusive about who has the
final verdict on whether a Spin can be a Spin or not.
I am sure, you are aware of the prior discussions on this topic. How
many spin SIG meetings have there been and which spins have been
approved there? In the last release, Xfce and Games spin was approved in
a rel-eng meeting, fyi. I have explained another problem I ran into at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2008-December/msg00054.html
- Explain to me what you mean by "Ideally, FESCo would have still
considered spins as features" because Spins being Features yet not being
Features was one of the hurdles we needed to overcome by setting up a
new process.
You are forgetting a bit of history here. Spins were considered as
features before FESCo voted against it.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList
See the electronics lab as a feature in there?
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
