Kevin Kofler said the following on 10/01/2009 02:28 AM Pacific Time:
So I'll have to blame the previous FESCo for voting this through with
practically no feedback, as they observed themselves before the vote:
17:14:04 <nirik> has there been any feedback on lists or wiki?
17:14:15 * nirik just sees one 'sounds fine to me' comment on the discussion
page
17:14:25 <notting> yeah, haven't seen much
The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a
leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the
schedule, and evaluating the quality of the release under development
and our ability to release on time. As the group responsible for
guiding the technical direction of our releases I think this is
something they should be more involved in. I'd be glad to help gather
data they might need to do this and there might be others who would be
willing to help too.
I'm suggesting more proactive leadership from FESCo and clear
initiatives to take Fedora to the next level versus only being
responsible for approving features, proven packagers, and policy matters.
This is also my vision for the Fedora Board.
But in any case, I don't think any of us realized the amount of maintainer
confusion this would cause (I know I didn't or I would have complained on
the mailing list right when this was proposed). In hindsight, it was
definitely a mistake. This thread is just one of the examples of maintainers
having been led to believe they have more time to develop their features
than they actually do, I've seen several more while sitting in FESCo feature
meetings. We should fix the mistake at the first opportunity (Fedora 13).
In other threads developers complained that the schedule was greatly
shortened (not completely true either).
It is unreasonable to assume that before the change to "Alpha" and
"Beta" for Fedora 12, that EVERYONE was clear what happened in "Alpha,"
"Beta," and "Preview" in the previous releases. That has never been the
case.
Labeling "Alpha," "Beta," and "Preview" were not evaluated based on
their actual industry meanings but were relabeled from the original
test1," "test2," and "test3," which were equally unclear.
At the same time, when the change for Fedora 12 was proposed it was
based on a variety of experiences and reactions to our previous test
phases and schedule changes for Fedora 12. It lacked hard data and we
still don't have any clear criteria to determine which way is better or
measure the results. So it is hard to argue that switching back would
be any better, though my "gut" says it would... I know other "guts" will
disagree ;-)
We need some guiding criteria or we're just going to keep going around
in circles. This is one reason I believe defining our target audience
and defining what we want to create and be (separate board thread on
fedora-advisory-board list) matters a great deal.
John
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
