----- Original Message ----- > On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 10:28 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 6.12.2012 21:40, Josh Boyer napsal(a): > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller > > > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > >>> As I said in the meeting yesterday, I think the definition of a > > >>> Feature > > >>> needs to be cleared up before we can really tackle this one. > > >>> Feature to > > >>> me is something important enough that it shouldn't be > > >>> auto-accepted. If > > >>> there is some other class of thing people submit that isn't a > > >>> Feature, > > >>> then I might be for auto-accepting of those. > > >> Alternately, "Feature" could be the term for the any small or > > >> big thing > > >> which is useful to track and tout for marketing purposes, and > > >> big technical > > >> changes could be, I dunno... "Major Changes". > > > The meeting minutes showed that Fedora Marketing is already > > > filtering > > > the current Feature list and picking the important ones to > > > highlight, so > > > I don't think continuing to call the small ones Features is > > > accurate. > > > > > > I mean, sure it could be done but it seems to make more sense to > > > change > > > the name of the small ones instead. Or just have them go to > > > release > > > notes. The main point is, calling them all the same thing is > > > confusing > > > and leads to a basically useless "Feature list". > > > > > > josh > > > > Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create > > feature page for it. Period. > > > > I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and impact, > > when > > it will be autocategorized by feedback on ML. The only think > > matters is > > that the Feature is widely advertised and that the community can > > provide > > early feedback. Please avoid bureaucracy. I would realy hate to see > > something like FFCo (Fedora Feature Committee), which would decided > > if > > feature is feature, major change, alteration, evolution or > > disruption, > > since it really doesn't matter. > > Maybe we can persuade Josh if we do s/Feature/A change that is worth > announcing and potentially also tracking or advertising/. Yep, as the main idea is to collect as much ideas/changes to be publicly announced and if we say only part of these are Features AFTER discussion/review - I'm ok with that. As it's the goal - to know about changes people do not consider features but definitely could be raised to the feature status. The common example I see as a wrangler - hey, I'm not sure this functionality is worth creating feature, and you know, the process, and nobody would care... But once the feature is accepted - wow, I got so much response, from all people from different projects that touch the area and we're now working on integration etc. -> *VISIBILITY*. Do not call it "Feature Process" but "Planning process" - as it fits the decision to create F19 schedule after we know the scope of it based on proposals. And then - I'm ok with even more terms - Feature for something we really want to feature and make Marketing's life easier - so not based on scope, but marketing and define more "boxes"... Jaroslav > -- > Tomas Mraz > No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. > Turkish proverb > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
