On 03/19/2012 06:38 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Josh Boyer<jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla<limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM (limburgher,
18:44:13)
* LINK:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers
(nirik, 18:45:42)
* AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback
on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they
would want to add and revisit next week. (+8,-:0,0:0) (limburgher,
19:09:50)
It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without
being on the agenda that was sent out. This is a rather large item that
needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure
that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in
the meeting today. (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without
a proper Subject and easily skipped.)
It's plain irritating that per the logs, the proposers of this thought it
was just going to be covered in the 'Open Floor' section. Seriously, this
is not the way to start off on a great foot for such a major proposal.
Agreed, my apologies. I'm still getting the hang of chairing meetings
and only saw the ARM feature after I sent the agenda. I added it to
the meeting thinking additional discussion would be helpful, not
necessarily that it needed a definitive vote. I'll certainly be more
careful all around next time.
My apologies on this as well (EVERYWHERE TONIGHT) - this feature went my
way late Friday, I went back and forth with feature owners a bit over
the weekend, and added the ticket as "open floor (for today) or meeting
(next week)" figuring that there was not going to be a definitive vote,
but that there was likely going to be numerous rounds of questions, and
leaving it to the discretion of FESCo to decide if they wanted to even
address it today vs. just acknowledge that "THIS IS COMING." Perhaps I
could have made that clearer in the ticket, or more inherently known
that "we cannot possibly look at a ticket without immediately having one
million questions," but I don't think this should be put on the feature
owners themselves as a bad way to start off; they were just looking to
start the discussion as way-before-F18 as possible. Throw the blame my
way, and I am pretty sure that the team of folks working on this are
well aware that this is not going to be a cut-and-dry decision, and
understand that it will likely take a while to get through the
discussion of the feature with all involved parties. They made
themselves quite available today, and I don't doubt that they will be
doing the same in future meetings should this continue to go forward.
-r
-J
josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
