[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-spins] Spins SIG Meeting(s) / Agenda!



On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 06:53:48PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I'm done arguing with you. Either comment on the process before the 
>> vote on Monday or forever hold your peace.
>
> Which process are you referring to now? I have commented on the spins  
> process extensively in here (I originally outlined a proposal on board's  
> request as the person having creating the first official spins) and  
> elsewhere as well before but it appears you have already made up your  
> mind in FUDCon and don't want any input.
>
> As far as I am concerned, spin = feature worked just fine before FESCo  
> decided to vote against that, leaving it in limbo.  For Fedora 9 and  
> Fedora 10, there has been a lot of confusion over what should be done.

Here's the deal.  Spins have a process that are treated exactly like
Features.  Just because it's not under the purview of FESCo doesn't
mean that it's not still viable.

> For Fedora 10, I went to rel-eng just so that some decisions can be  
> made.

So you are allowed to make arbitrary decisions in a closed group, but
those that did the exact same thing at FUDCon are somehow evil?  Wtf.

> For Fedora 11, the process outlined doesn't have enough details  

OK, now this is the part where you are actually being helpful.

> (just as an example: what should a report contain?

I'm not entirely clear myself here.

> how often would there  be a spin sig meeting. 

Every other week, in the same time-slot as the EPEL meeting.

> Can I vote for my own spins as a spin sig member?  

Yes.

> Is everyone who signs up as a spin sig member by merely editing the wiki  
> get to vote?).

Dunno.  And sort of inconsiquential, given that "gaming the system" isn't
exactly wrong or right either way.

> The process has now been made more cumbersome by  
> mandating by weekly composes and reports (who decided on that?). 

That one came from me.  Having spins fail to compose during the week
that rel-eng is trying to get a milestone (Alpha, Beta, Preview) out the
door is simply an easy way to drop the Spin entirely.

It's not more cumbersome.  It's putting the responsibility for the spin
into the hands of the person that cares about it the most, which is the
spin owner.  So the week before a milestone release is going to be busy
for the SIG and the owners, but that is part of being a Spin owner.

> of helping spin maintainers, this process seems to be making it more  
> difficult. It is too soon to be voting on this and time isn't suitable  
> for me to attend. Let's discuss it first on mailing list.

More difficult in areas, yes.  It does help the owners with the process
itself though, since they don't have to play "who do I ask next for
approval" on getting the spin itself actually accepted.

Look, creating an official Spin is not as simple as "here is my kickstart
file, go build this please."  If the owners really want the Spin to
succeed and be released with the rest of the releases that are done, it
needs to at least have some of the same criteria as those.  If that is too
cumbersome or time consuming for someone to do, then they can use a Remix
and do it on their own schedule.

The bar has been raised, and this is not a bad thing.

josh


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]