long term support release

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:26:18 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:16:30 -0900
> "Jeff Spaleta" wrote:
> 
> > Legacy was not a failure... it was a key part of the process of
> > defining what the limits are with the resources we have. Now that we
> > have gone through that, the people who have survived the process have
> > a much better idea of what it takes in terms of a resource commitment
> > to pull it off.
> > 
> > I have absolutely no problem with another attempt at community effort
> > as a follow-up to what Legacy did. I just don't think its where this
> > community of contributors wants to contribute. I think at a minimum
> > there are 3rd support specialists out there with a business interest
> > in a Fedora LTS, or perhaps niche hardware vendors in the embedded
> > space which could be persuaded to leverage Fedora as a development
> > platform. Lots of unexplored area.
> 
> It's perfectly OK to fail, in fact we should fail more often, and share
> the results of those failures.  It's only by failure that we'll know
> the limits of our abilities.

It may be "OK" in general, but it was very disappointing. Fedora Legacy
leadership was not willing to learn from mistakes. As you may remember,
Fedora Legacy started inside bugzilla.fedora.us, copied also the fedora.us
package submission/review/approval process, including the corresponding
bugzilla keywords. It had one foot in the grave already at the start. This
resulted in updates waiting several weeks for approval, simply because the
people providing those updates were treated as completely untrusted or
incapable and were not permitted to publish any updates without prior
approval. They had to wait endlessly for another person to sign off the
updates, and obviously, even fewer volunteers were interested enough to be
responsible for approving updates. For a project where speed does matter
this was inacceptable and drove away or scared off contributors.