On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 19:40 +0100, Bart Couvreur wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Karsten Wade schreef: > > We have a few items that have backed up to deal with; please help me > > make sure that enough of these *decision* items make it on the agenda. > > Bringing them up on-list means we can work out the details *before the > > meeting*. This is a new paradigm for FDSCo, but one we have all spoken > > of following (iirc). ;-) > > > So let's get the on-list decision stuff done then :) > > > 0. Meeting time -- [LIST DECISION] > > So I've been looking through our previous thread[1] on this very subject > and the small consensus seemed to be the three-hour window. > > Tue 2100 UTC +3 to Tue 0000 UTC +3 > Tue 1800 UTC to Tue 2100 UTC > Tue 1300 EST to Tue 1600 EST > Tue 1000 PST to Tue 1300 PST > > Is this still probable? We should identify specific "full committee" > decisions ahead of time, to make sure we have a quorum hanging around. > (candidates see below) I have two problems here, one of them selfishly motivated and the other decidedly not: 1. Selfish reason: That's smack in the middle of my workday, and my $DAYJOB cuts me *ZERO* time for Fedora. That's not to say I don't sneak some in here and there, but Fedora is the first thing that gets eliminated when I have deadlines or priorities to meet. I would REALLY like to be involved in these meetings, but I simply can't commit to it during these hours. :-( Nevertheless, there's always IRC logging and catchup that would make up for it somewhat, and waiting for me to get home automatically pushes our European contingent into very late hours, so I understand. Is there no one interested in a weekend meeting? (I know, we all need lives.) 2. Unselfish reason: This project has really begun to do a LOT of work on IRC and not on the mailing list. The number of people on IRC is *FAR* fewer than the number of people on the mailing list, and I worry that our opportunities for public collaboration are being stifled in that regard. We have a lot of lurkers who might be drawn in by the right conversation or idea. The 3-hour meeting idea might contribute to this, but I'm not sure. If I'm retreading old ground or reversing myself, mea culpa, I am legion. > > 1. Elect new chair/project leader [MEETING DECISION] > > 1.1 Decide if chair is 12 mon. or 6 mon. position? [MEETING DECISION] > > -- on-list discussion? > - -> This would be a candidate > > > > 2. Meetings on #fedora-docs v. #fedora-meeting [MEETING DECISION] > > > > 3. Confirm FDP schedule for F7 [LIST DISCUSSION],[MEETING DECISION] > > We should consider L10N workload here, maybe only do a final version of > guides on L10N-level. The benefit of pushing it a couple times is that small changes (which inevitably happen from the last test => final, regardless of whining to the contrary!) can make it into the guides. We've made a lot of progress toward minimizing string changes so I would hope the extra work would be minimal, unlike the release notes situation we landed in last release, which was unintentional and shouldn't recur with our current procedures. Pushing twice also means that if a translation team puts off one project in favor of the other (relnotes, guides), they have that opportunity without having to accomplish everything at one time on a short deadline. (Yikes!) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
