On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:31:26PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 07:12 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Adam Williamson wrote: >> > Er, the _topic_ of this thread is "Fedora 12 Features Proposed for >> > Removal". The email doesn't say anything about 'if you fix this stuff >> > before the meeting it'll be fine' (though that may be the actual case), >> > and the amount of notice given is a princely two days, which isn't that >> > long for anyone to make changes. The way things are worded are clearly >> > "We're going to drop these features", not "please check this, okay? >> > Please? Thanks!" >> >> FYI, we voted against dropping most of that stuff. They were just proposed >> for dropping. > >Sure, but that was sort of my point. What was actually achieved by >'proposing' features to be dropped that everyone knew wouldn't really be >dropped, and then having a meeting to confirm that they wouldn't be? It's called transparency and accountability. Some call it beauracracy. See, FESCo used to just make these 'obvious' decisions at times, and we were yelled at for not having a definable process and not being transparent. Repeatedly. We have a Feature process now, and while I'm not a huge fan of process, this one is run very well by the Feature Wrangler. It treats them all the same, they have to all follow the same criteria regardless of how 'obvious' some of the decisions are. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
