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

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

> - not at FUDCon
> 
> I've told you I'm sorry, give it a rest already.

The problem is not me or others being in FUDCon or not but decisions 
being made there which will always exclude people. Ours a global 
community and the ability to attend conferences in a particular place 
anywhere in the world is limited. You said you will do it again which 
seemed to be that you didn't understand the issue. It is nothing personal.

> And how do you think your comments are not in the new process we've come 
> up with during FUDCon?

It is not since I wasn't in FUDCon.

> - "what should a report contain?"
> 
> I'm not sure yet, have any ideas? This has settled down just under 3 
> days, and it hasn't even been voted upon yet. Do you want all the 
> details now? You sure? Because that would make it more permanent and 
> less flexible then the state it's in now (still open for suggestions).

Here is what I suggest:

* Postpone the IRC meeting and voting now. It is too early and there has 
not been enough details to warrant a vote yet.

* Post a summary of what was discussed in FUDCon and the new proposal 
discussed in the FUDCon. Communicate as much details as possible so that 
spin owners can understand why the changes were made and ask for input 
in this list and not on a IRC meeting. Wait for a week or two so that we 
can discuss it further and then maybe arrange a IRC meeting.

> - you're confused on what process it is we're talking about
> 
> Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki
> 
> - you're looking for what the process was and how we streamlined it
> 
> Suggested solution: read the Spins_Process page on the Wiki

I already did. You would know that if you had read my mails since I was 
specific and pointed out a few examples where there aren't enough details.

> - you're eager to know what needs to be done for XFCE and other spins 
> you submitted
> 
> Suggested solution: Await what the Spins SIG comes up with after the 
> meeting, since this item is on the agenda

Since I am part of Spin SIG, I am giving my feedback to try and steer 
the decision in the right direction.

> - you have an opinion about Spins being Spins vs. Features
> 
> Suggested solution: weight that argument in your vote for the new process

I can't be in the IRC meeting and I don't think voting without details 
in the right way to do it. I am explaining it in the list so you can 
consider it while making the decision.

> - """It would be still viable if the process is outlined. The process 
> has to be in discussed and in place before FESCo delegates it to 
> somebody else."""
> 
> 1) The process is outlined
> 2) the process has been discussed, with representatives of Rel-eng, our 
> dear Feature Wrangler, the Spins SIG leader, a few 
> spin-submitting/maintaining users, a FESCo delegate, and reviewed 
> afterwards by QA and the Rel-Eng lead. Remember that Rel-Eng in the 
> first place is the party to whom FESCo delegated responsibility.

I don't know what was discussed since a summary wasn't posted in this 
list. Filling in the details would be helpful.

> I could continue but I don't feel like it. I sure hope this email sounds 
> dismissive enough for you to finally stop arguing over nothing and 
> continue the part of the thread where I think you may have actually said 
> something useful.

If you don't feel I have said anything useful so far, I am sorry to hear 
that but then, we have nothing more to discuss. Carry on with your 
meeting and I will deal with the result when it comes to that point. 
Thanks.

Rahul