On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > What I'm looking at is the commit logs. That's all that ultimately > > matters. But see above revisions, of course. > > > > I think that's a very narrow view of the world to base your assertions on > commit logs only, I don't see the value in it. If your end argument here is > that CPE do not spend enough time working on Fedora things then you are > very mistaken. Almost 80% of our team capacity is on Fedora and our > upcoming Q2 initiatives this is the same. Just to make sure this is really clear, no, that's not my intent at all. I was only following up on the question of whether the amount of resources available for what was previously referred to as "Fedora infra" (as opposed, for instance, to "Fedora release engineering") had increased, decreased or stayed the same (with "stayed the same" seeming to be the ultimate conclusion). By including or excluding anyone from the lists I absolutely did not mean to imply anything about the value of their contributions, or whether those contributions were to "Fedora" in a larger sense - I was only trying to keep it a like-for-like comparison. It's obvious from your and Clement's emails that this idea got lost somewhere as we got into the weeds of commit logs and the like, so I apologize for that, particularly as it turns out my initial impression that the resources available had declined was incorrect. I probably work closer with the releng folks than anyone and I certainly value their work highly! The initial suggestion I made that triggered this subthread was not "perhaps CPE isn't spending enough time on Fedora" (I certainly don't believe that or intend to suggest it) but "perhaps Red Hat is not providing enough resources to CPE and other teams in order for Fedora to be run the way the Fedora community believes it should be run". As I said to Clement, I think the suggestion still bears consideration, given that Clement says the workload has increased appreciably. > > > Can you help me understand what the mystery is about? We took in 300+ > > > requirements that we distilled down into the generic list that we came > > > up > > > with, many of which are buckets / Epics. Every single requirement was > > > analysed. I have said this multiple times but please, if this is still > > > a > > > mystery to you, let me know how I can help clarify it. > > > > The specific gap I am talking about is the gap between this list > > submitted by Ben Cotton on behalf of Fedora: > > > > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/OEPDGVKYAJIQ6YYZU5J3XT3LHXFROFI5/ > > The thread you reference is not the list that was submitted. The first post > on that is not the final list, the final list was a result of the debates > and discussions that occurred on that thread and was submitted directly to > CPE. To be clear, we did not pull our Fedora requirements from that list > you are referencing. Well, that's interesting. I got that link from earlier in this thread, where Julen asked if that was the list you meant: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/O4GHD2AH2E55JE45H6NUJ46JEDZAKBWY/ and you said "yes": https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/F4HMYWOCACQAJY57G3ZNXMC7PSBRQPZ3/ so, I'm only going on what you told us. If it is *not* in fact the final list, where *is* that final list? There is a substantial comment from Matt in which he downplays the self-hosting requirement: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/E5R55AS3Z7QLGRXAT6RGQKJNVXLTAJHJ/ and kind of prevaricates a lot on the F/OSS requirement, first saying that he wants to emphasize it and then kind of saying the opposite for three paragraphs. So I can see where that might have caused some confusion. But without seeing this "final list" that you're now saying exists, it's hard to be sure. > > > > and the 'summarized' list you have pointed to here: > > > > https://hackmd.io/@My419-DISUGgo4gcmO1D6A/HJB74lcL8 > > > > Now, right off the bat, we have a huge problem. The "summarized" list > > claims this: > > > > "after duplications and similar in theme requirements were merged > > together, we were left with the following unique User Story list:" > > > > you've also phrased the same thing slightly differently on the mailing > > list: > > > > "As a team we evaluated every single requirement (over 300 of them) and > > the presentation in the combined User Story list is an amalgamation of > > like for like User Stories to capture at a high level the spirit of the > > requests." > > However, the top three points on the Fedora list relate to F/OSS and > > self-hosting principles. These points are entirely missing from the > > "summarized" list. > > They were never formal requirements as submitted by Ben. I'm assuming you > did not read Matthews reply > <https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/E5R55AS3Z7QLGRXAT6RGQKJNVXLTAJHJ/> > on the thread you linked which descoped om prem and OSS as a standard, > which I am assuming Ben used as his basis to remove them from the formally > submitted list. You're right, I didn't, but this was because earlier in the thread you said that the list mentioned above *was* the Fedora list. I can only go on what I'm told, after all. Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list, then? If this is supposed to be an open process? As I wrote I find Matthew's comment ambiguous, but I would suggest that reading it as "descoping...OSS" is arguably going too far. It does, after all, start out by saying "In contrast, I strongly urge the CPE decision-makers to take this into strong consideration". That seems kind of the opposite to "descoping" it, to me. As a Fedora contributor I would be surprised if the original list plus Matthew's comment with no further discussion led to the utter removal of F/OSS as a requirement on Fedora's part from the final submitted list. That would seem like a mistake. Of course, it wouldn't be CPE's mistake. > > I will also make a side note: it was claimed earlier in this thread that > > the "mobile app" requirement "came from Fedora", but there is a rather > > interesting discrepancy there. The Fedora requirement reads: > > > > "As a Fedora contributor, I can perform issue and pull request actions > > on mobile devices via a native mobile app or a mobile-friendly webapp so > > that I can contribute while away from my desk." > > > > The "summarized" version reads: > > > > "As a General User > > I want a mobile native app > > To allow me contribute while away from my desk" > > > > I don't really find that an interesting discrepancy that we choose the > generic wording for a mobile app requirement. If you like, I can update the > wording to be verbatim, it doesn't change the actual ask of the requirement > which is mobility use cases, which is what we evaluated on. It's not very important, I just found it another interesting indication of the "summarization" process losing some nuance. There is a difference between saying you want (only) "a mobile native app" and saying you want "a mobile native app or mobile-friendly webapp". After all, only Github (kinda) has the first, but all three (arguably) have the second. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
