Kevin Fenzi said the following on 10/02/2009 08:49 AM Pacific Time:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:35:33 -0700
John Poelstra <poelstra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...snip...
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 would love to. Can you show me the 28 hour days so I have some extra
hours? :)
Seriously tho, I think many of the FESCo folks _DO_ stay involved in
lots of things, some of them might not be as visible as people think
they would be. Or did you mean at some higher level?
I was thinking at a higher level and no, I wasn't trying to imply that
nobody is working hard enough of needs to do more. As I think about
this more it was a suggestion of trading some things out and replacing
them with others. I'm also not intending to tell FESCo how to do their
job or say that they are doing it wrong :-)
This came out of the original thread about people not understanding the
milestones, etc. It occurred to me that we might have a gap in our
processes and I wondered who is responsible for all the maintainers
knowing what the process and policies are around our important milestones.
Some of this happens naturally when I have to send out my email nags
about stale feature pages, but what if in a perfect world there were no
stale feature pages and thus my messages never went out? :)
FWIW I am hoping to update some of our wiki pages and send out more
email reminders during Fedora 13. Hopefully it will be helpful and not
be considered spam.
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.
I think move involvement wherever we can get it great, but I don't
think we should try and force people to do X hours of work on Y.
Absolutely agree. It becomes more a matter of how we spend the same
amount of time we are already. It is easy to get really focused on
managing the stuff we are already doing vs. looking for ways to stop
doing some things (so meetings don't run two hours) and taking a broader
view of asking if we are going in the direction we want to with the
distro. Are our releases getting better? Are we meeting the needs of
the community we are trying to build and serve? How will we know if we
are or are not?
Also, if we want to require fesco and/or the board to be more involved
and proactive, we should note these requirements for the next election.
I'm not sure if it is a requirement so much as it is a mindset that I am
advocating.
A possible idea for the next cycle:
- Wait until we have the list of approved features.
- Divide them up amoung fesco and have a 'point contact' for each that
is a fesco member.
- Each member is responsible for testing/tracking/talking to the
feature owner and getting them what they need to get things done as
well as knowing if something is not ready/etc.
I don't know how feasible this is given the large list of features
however.
Sounds great to me, but would other members go for it? :) Maybe this is
along the lines of the "Features SIG" that someone suggested a ways back.
John
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
