----- Original Message ----- > On 2013-06-21 10:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:01 -0700 > > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> So, just a phrasing thing, the criteria are mostly written in the form > >> 'XXX must be the case', not 'XXX is added to the blocker list'. So > >> perhaps: > >> > >> 'All bugs deemed by FESCo to block the milestone release must be > >> fixed.' > >> > >> Would be enough. My suggestion used the terms 'issues' and 'addressed' > >> as weasel words we've found useful before - in the case where we work > >> around a bug, rather than fixing it, we can call that 'addressing' it > >> - but I don't really mind writing it that way and just using Common > >> Sense (tm). I think specifying FESCo's current decision-making > >> mechanism - majority vote - in the criterion is a mistake, as it's at > >> least theoretically plausible that FESCo could change its > >> decision-making mechanism in future, and then the criterion would > >> need to be updated for no good reason. All that matters to the > >> blocker process is that 'FESCo Hath Deemed It Thus'. The mechanism by > >> which FESCo Deems things is out of scope. > > > > Sure. Works for me. > > As there were no objections, I'm adding this to the Alpha page as I > create the F20 criteria pages. Thanks! Late +1! It's good to have it documented and part of blocker process to avoid surprises. R. > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora > http://www.happyassassin.net > -- > test mailing list > test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
