On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 15:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria. > > > John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final > > > content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA > > > (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release engineering (Jesse Keating), > > > anaconda team (especially Denise Dumas and Peter Jones) and desktop team > > > (Christopher Aillon and Matthias Clasen, who provided suggestions at an > > > earlier stage). > > > > So once again things get decided by a small group of people in an in-person > > meeting and whoever didn't happen to be at the right place at the right time > > only gets to know the final decision after the fact? :-( > > Nope. This has been discussed for several weeks now. John Poelstra > posted the initial draft to test-list on November 20th, and asked for > feedback: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg00926.html > > He posted a further request for feedback on December 2nd, with an > explicit explanation that we would be gathering to finish working on the > pages at FUDCon: > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-December/msg00047.html > > It was also brought up at each QA group meeting during this time. > > All the feedback that was received in response to any of those requests > was considered for the page either before or at FUDCon. > > This is not really about 'deciding things', it's about documenting an > existing process. Everything in the criteria is either based on the > existing QA acceptance test plan or has been requested by the anaconda > or desktop teams. > > > I've complained > > many times about this lack of transparency and I'll continue to do so. > > I don't think complaint is justified in this case. It was a perfectly > transparent process. There was a lot of opportunity to feed in. > > > Plus, why was the KDE SIG not invited? (We had at least 4 KDE SIG folks > > present at FUDCon.) > > We had a pre-hackfest meeting for the whole FUDCon attendee list where > everyone who wanted to hack on something stood up and announced what > they would be hacking on. John Poelstra announced at that meeting that > we would be gathering to work on the release criteria. The KDE people > who were at FUDCon were at that meeting, so they were in a position to > know about the work. I was running around all day telling people what we > were working on, it wasn't a secret. > > > Are you planning to ship Fedora 13 even if the KDE Live > > image is broken? > > That depends on whether you want us to or not. :) If a SIG has criteria > they want to add to the list, and they can commit to fulfilling those > criteria and be willing to take the responsibility of causing a release > to slip if they _don't_ fulfill them, we can certainly add those to the > lists. If KDE has minimum functional levels for the KDE spin that they > can commit to, please do send them to this thread and we'll look at > putting them in the criteria. > > We intentionally didn't specifically address the issue of the relative > 'importance' of spins in the criteria as it's a difficult topic and one > that's not really appropriate to decide in this place. The existing > criteria didn't address this either - they didn't say anything about > _any_ spin having to be not 'broken' before we ship - so there's no > change there. > <sarcasm> In the future could all decisions about Fedora be run through me prior to them being enacted? </sarcasm> -Mike -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
