Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:20 -0700 schrieb Toshio Kuratomi: > Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > > Wasn't done because > > * of the missing reviews > > * I expected someone from FeSCo to give me a go. > > > This would be miscommunication, then. AFAIK, comps is open to > maintainers to make changes to. Maintainers are expected to do that. Wait: I'm expected to introduce a new group in comps without previous discussion and without explicit permission from FeSCo? I remember endless discussions about new groups here. If everybody was allowed to make new groups whenever he wants I'm sure that comps will be hosed pretty soon. > We should have a rule like: > Communication happens on the Feature Discussion Page > or: > Communication happens via private email between the feature owner and > the feature wrangler > or: > Communication happens via the FESCo Meeting Summary > > so that everyone knows that there's a one-stop shop to put out and > receive information. +1. > > * the wiki says [1]: "The feature owner is responsible for > > watching any owned pages for state changes, using the wiki watch > > feature." That's what I did, nevertheless I did not get > > notified. > > I've heard that mediawiki doesn't work like people expect for watching > pages. I'll admit that I haven't watched pages since the change to > mediawiki so I'm not sure how this works. Well, I got previous notifications from the wiki so I expect it to work. Obviously my case was special: I think we are seeing both technical and human failure here (I'm not excluding myself from the human failures). > > * I think I did everything I could to rescue my feature. I someone > > contacted me I would have responded. > > * the decision was made by people who obviously did not read the > > feature page and have no interest in the feature. If somebody > > has not read the page he should not speak up on that topic or > > decide about it, and if he has further question he should ask. > > These are a bit unfair. The Feature Page shows that the feature is not > done. Checking bugzilla shows that the page is up-to-date in regards to > the package review status. Beta is a deadline for features and that has > come and gone. So the Feature is plainly not completed whether you were > contacted or not; whether the people who commented knew all the > particulars or only some. Agreed, but my point is: They don't need to know all details, but they need to read the feature page. And if the page says that 9 out of 11 packages are done I expect FeSCo members to know that, not more, not less, but I expect somebody to not incorrectly state that none of the packages is available. > Can you be angry that communication wasn't good enough? Sure. But it > works both ways -- if the packages can't be reviewed in time but they > aren't necessary why not be proactive and take them off the list? I could not take any of the missing packages off the list because they all are necessary. > If > you feel you need them and they can be reviewed after Beta but before > final, why not ask for an extension? Extension of what - the Beta? I think LXDE is not Gnome or Mozilla, so we are not giving up our schedule for it. > If you're waiting for FESCo to > approve the new comps group, why not ask FESCo if you can move ahead on > that portion? I did not yet add the new group because it does not make sense without the mandatory lxde-common package, but I'm afraid we are going into details here. I wasn't aware of the fact that my comps changes are affecting string freeze, but the FeSCo members were. They accepted my feature only one week before feature/string freeze, so somebody could have told me. > FESCo members should be reading the feature page but they will never be > able to be intimately familiar with all the Features being proposed. In > other words, we can't expect them to know any more about a feature than > what is written on the Feature Page. Completely agreed, but obviously this was not the case here. From what I read in the IRC log I even doubt that everybody knew the feature page. > If you look at the Feature Page > and it looks like the Feature is not completed or doesn't express what > the Feature really is or leaves out something that might lead FESCo to > think it's not a feature it needs to be clarifies on the feature page so > they can understand it better. The feature page was accepted both by the feature wrangler and FeSCo, so I assume that the page is ok and doesn't leave anything out. > > * no FeSCo member except from Bill reacted to my previous mails. > > heh. I interpret that as a bunch of polite people not jumping in to say > "Me too" but it could be frustrating. Although I don't subscribe to Bills point of view I honor that he answered and I have to admit that he made valid points. From the rest of the FeSCo members I'd like to know if they had really read the feature page and - if so - how someone could state something incorrect then. I don't mind a couple of "me too"s and if any of the members has criticism on my behavior I'm surely going to take that into account. > -Toshio > Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
