Fedora release criteria completely revised

[Mike McGrath]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Adam Williamson wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 15:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > During FUDCon, we've been working on revising the Fedora release criteria.
> > > John Poelstra had already fleshed out a structure and much of the final
> > > content, and we've been revising and tweaking it in conjunction with QA
> > > (myself, Will Woods and James Laska), release engineering (Jesse Keating),
> > > anaconda team (especially Denise Dumas and Peter Jones) and desktop team
> > > (Christopher Aillon and Matthias Clasen, who provided suggestions at an
> > > earlier stage).
> >
> > So once again things get decided by a small group of people in an in-person
> > meeting and whoever didn't happen to be at the right place at the right time
> > only gets to know the final decision after the fact? :-(
>
> Nope. This has been discussed for several weeks now. John Poelstra
> posted the initial draft to test-list on November 20th, and asked for
> feedback:
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-November/msg00926.html
>
> He posted a further request for feedback on December 2nd, with an
> explicit explanation that we would be gathering to finish working on the
> pages at FUDCon:
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-December/msg00047.html
>
> It was also brought up at each QA group meeting during this time.
>
> All the feedback that was received in response to any of those requests
> was considered for the page either before or at FUDCon.
>
> This is not really about 'deciding things', it's about documenting an
> existing process. Everything in the criteria is either based on the
> existing QA acceptance test plan or has been requested by the anaconda
> or desktop teams.
>
> >  I've complained
> > many times about this lack of transparency and I'll continue to do so.
>
> I don't think complaint is justified in this case. It was a perfectly
> transparent process. There was a lot of opportunity to feed in.
>
> > Plus, why was the KDE SIG not invited? (We had at least 4 KDE SIG folks
> > present at FUDCon.)
>
> We had a pre-hackfest meeting for the whole FUDCon attendee list where
> everyone who wanted to hack on something stood up and announced what
> they would be hacking on. John Poelstra announced at that meeting that
> we would be gathering to work on the release criteria. The KDE people
> who were at FUDCon were at that meeting, so they were in a position to
> know about the work. I was running around all day telling people what we
> were working on, it wasn't a secret.
>
> > Are you planning to ship Fedora 13 even if the KDE Live
> > image is broken?
>
> That depends on whether you want us to or not. :) If a SIG has criteria
> they want to add to the list, and they can commit to fulfilling those
> criteria and be willing to take the responsibility of causing a release
> to slip if they _don't_ fulfill them, we can certainly add those to the
> lists. If KDE has minimum functional levels for the KDE spin that they
> can commit to, please do send them to this thread and we'll look at
> putting them in the criteria.
>
> We intentionally didn't specifically address the issue of the relative
> 'importance' of spins in the criteria as it's a difficult topic and one
> that's not really appropriate to decide in this place. The existing
> criteria didn't address this either - they didn't say anything about
> _any_ spin having to be not 'broken' before we ship - so there's no
> change there.
>

<sarcasm>

In the future could all decisions about Fedora be run through me prior to
them being enacted?

</sarcasm>

	-Mike