-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
| | If this is am open discussion about the FC4 schedule. I would | personally prefer to see a SLOW release cycle so the non-technical | issues, the community facing policy/organizational issues can finally | get some needed high priority allocation from inside the fenceline. |
Definitely. There is much that needs to be formalised here.
I for one am very disappointed that I have zero control pushing my own agenda within Fedora. I have four outstanding bugs and enhancements with patches (135657, 135659, 135660, 120635) which are completely at the whim RH as to when they may apply them, if ever.
| In terms of what is important in the long term health of fedora as a | community project and not just a collection of code.. time needs to be | made by the primaries inside Red Hat to deal the issues of how | community is actually going to be invited and encouraged to be | invovled beyond upstream component developers. Pushing a quick fc4 | schedule is NOT going to make it easier to deal with any community | contributor/leadership issues... real or imagined, outstanding or | looming. |
Indeed. A quick push just means there's even less time to lobby for changes that have already been deferred because you were all too busy getting out FC3.
We already see that existing RH resources are struggling to be reactive to the situation. If you cannot open this project up along the lines of other large open projects, whereby I can influence the final product, then I will seriously consider participating elsewhere.
Alan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBiaQnCfroLk4EZpkRAkDVAJ4uhkh8jg0kfvuliTqX6A9PPe29fgCfa1rA Eb3F0X9XG5vfgSxf6UrzAgI= =/RIv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
