[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me
- From: Christoph Wickert <christoph wickert googlemail com>
- To: Development discussions related to Fedora <fedora-devel-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me
- Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:49:46 +0200
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
> We should have a rule like:
> Communication happens on the Feature Discussion Page
> Communication happens via private email between the feature owner and
> the feature wrangler
> Communication happens via the FESCo Meeting Summary
> so that everyone knows that there's a one-stop shop to put out and
> receive information.
> > * the wiki says : "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.
> 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
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.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]