On 11/1/07, Chuck Anderson <cra@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Since when do we care about who ships what first? I think its fair to say that people want to get some credit for the hard work they are point into getting the deeper design stuff "right." It matters to developer morale and to overall health of the project. We have to do a much better job at being able to point out the cool crap that is going on under the hood and getting the laypress talking about it and getting end-users excited about it. The hard work needs to be appreciated exactly because its HARD work. But we seem to be stuck in a linux enthusiastic culture where the technology under the hood isn't as important as the paint job and the futurist styling. We have to try to change the tone of the discussion. We have to find a way to encourage people who are writing articles and reviews to stop focusing on the immediate shallow gains of each distribution release, but to start talking about how the technology introduced in each release enables advances in future releases. As long as releases are reviewed as end-products and not an steps along a path, the HARD work that Fedora developers are doing will always be less applauded than it deserves to be. But how do we do this? My best idea would be to start extending the Feature proposal process so that it has a multiple release horizon for features, with technology milestones per release along that feature path. This gives us legitimate "technology preview" talking points for features introduced in a release that aren't completely there yet without the pressure of flipping the switch and turning them on by default to claim them as our own. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
