Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I'm done arguing with you. Either comment on the process before the vote
on Monday or forever hold your peace.
Which process are you referring to now?
I think this is a good time for you to start reading the agenda.
Please stop being dismissive and read the rest of mails where I gave you
more input.
Reviewing what you've written so far;
- not at FUDCon
I've told you I'm sorry, give it a rest already.
- "It's general principle to be inclusive of everyone in the community
as much as possible"
Wasting my time typing this email is a little more inclusive then I'd
like to see.
- "I've commented on the spins process extensively"
And how do you think your comments are not in the new process we've come
up with during FUDCon?
- "what should a report contain?"
I'm not sure yet, have any ideas? This has settled down just under 3
days, and it hasn't even been voted upon yet. Do you want all the
details now? You sure? Because that would make it more permanent and
less flexible then the state it's in now (still open for suggestions).
- you're confused on what process it is we're talking about
Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
- you're looking for what the process was and how we streamlined it
Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
- you're eager to know what needs to be done for XFCE and other spins
you submitted
Suggested solution: Await what the Spins SIG comes up with after the
meeting, since this item is on the agenda
- you have an opinion about Spins being Spins vs. Features
Suggested solution: weight that argument in your vote for the new process
- """It would be still viable if the process is outlined. The process
has to be in discussed and in place before FESCo delegates it to
somebody else."""
1) The process is outlined
2) the process has been discussed, with representatives of Rel-eng, our
dear Feature Wrangler, the Spins SIG leader, a few
spin-submitting/maintaining users, a FESCo delegate, and reviewed
afterwards by QA and the Rel-Eng lead. Remember that Rel-Eng in the
first place is the party to whom FESCo delegated responsibility.
I could continue but I don't feel like it. I sure hope this email sounds
dismissive enough for you to finally stop arguing over nothing and
continue the part of the thread where I think you may have actually said
something useful.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
