Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 1) Anyone, who wants "adventurous updates" is not representing me.
> I'm willing to fix bugs -- and I want to retain the freedom to publish
> bug-fix updates, which make the software work -- but I don't like to
> jump into cold water after a final release and return it to its
> development period by applying "adventurous updates" on purpose.
> The final release is the wrong place for that.
The word "adventurous" was maybe a bad choice (but still, many people voted
for it anyway in the poll, probably because they realized that it's just a
word and the description clearly explained what it was about anyway). I
wouldn't have used that word myself. What we "adventurous updates" folks
really want is non-disruptive non-conservative updates. No need to be
conservative as long as you don't break anything.
> 2) Fedora doesn't only need more testers of updates to stable releases, it
> also needs more testers during its _entire_ development period. I'm not
> convinced that everyone follows the "release in Rawhide first, test in
> Rawhide first" principle before even considering to upgrade a stable
> release. Let those 70-80% of our users do a great job by helping
> with getting the next Fedora release in shape. It will work better out
> of the box and will need less bug-fix updates. I'm happy about the
> remaining 20-30%, who prefer installations that need not be tinkered
> with daily.
Rawhide is not a solution, as has been explained several times already.
And many feature updates were, in fact, tested in Rawhide first!
> 3) FESCo *and* the FPB ought to discuss their visions and goals
> _privately_ (they still have non-public communication channels for that),
> try to find an agreement with eachother, and when they make their plan
> public, let some sort of spokesman make an announcement on behalf of the
> committee/board. If their proposals _or_ decisions are unpopular and
> result in criticism, I don't want to see the committee/board members fight
> the critics. The members (in particular the elected community
> representatives) are free to ignore critics, or collect feedback and
> possibly revise their proposals or, as a last resort, withdraw unpopular
> decisions.
I couldn't disagree more. I believe strongly in transparency and
accountability. I don't think we should discuss things behind closed doors
and present you with "take it or leave it" or even "take it or leave".
>> When I speak for KDE SIG, I say so!
>
> What about your FESCo membership? How do you separate between your own
> personal agenda and being an elected community representative?
When I speak for FESCo, I say so! When I don't say otherwise, I only speak
for myself! I'm not a spokesman!
And FYI, I'm the only one who took your defense during and after the FESCo
meeting when those remarks were made about you.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
