On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:43 AM Randy Barlow <bowlofeggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/3/20 4:41 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> This is how a specific flavour of software development works centered on
> a singular product, with a shared vision. The CPE relationship with
> stakeholders is unique, it's clear the visions are not aligned across
> all bodies (and we do not expect it to be) and we don't have a product.
> We have taken a more formal project requirements elicitation approach
> for this phase.
It is not unique, it is entirely common. It is typical for software
products to have a variety of stakeholders with different competing
visions. I've not worked on any software product in my career that had a
single aligned vision among stakeholders, at Red Hat or anywhere else,
companies large and small. Nothing about this project is out of the
ordinary in this regard.
CPE is entirely unique in this industry and is not perfectly aligned to the idealistic software engineering process, we are getting there.
You do have a product: it's called dist-git.
That's not a product.
> That is what we are doing right now by engaging on the specific needs
> for our Gitlab instance(s). We are doing this and over the next 2 weeks
> will be engaging with each group on specifics now that a path has been
> set. At that point the real disagreements can be decided upon by our
> product owner in conjunction with stakeholders, this will not be a
> decision in a vacuum.
Specific needs are evaluated before making a decision, not after. That's
engineering basics.
We evaluated the needs necessary to make a decision.
> We didn't quash communication for reasons already mentioned. We didn't
> facilitate it is a more accurate assessment, for which we have
> acknowledged and apologized.
You certainly didn't engage with the community.
We did.
Fedora has a change
process, and every other significant change goes through it.
We were instructed to go through Council, which we did.
Sure, not
everyone is happy with the results of every decision, but there is at
least open discussion. That open discussion often influences the
decision. You didn't do that here, and the only communication of the
decision was buried in an e-mail that many people don't read.
The blog post went out later than intended due to real life issues the volunteers who publish it had, that was outside of our control and less than ideal. I opened the thread first thing on Monday
That
communication was also a decision, not an invitation for discussion.
There is no process now for discussion to influence the decision, a
cornerstone of open development.
This is not open.
_______________________________________________
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
Leigh Griffin
Engineering Manager
Communications House
Cork Road, Waterford City
lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx
M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin
_______________________________________________ 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
