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

[Rahul Sundaram]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> 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.

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. 
After Fedora 8, FESCo essentially said, we don't want to deal with this 
and it has been a mass confusion ever since.

>> 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.

A clearly outlined process and someone or a team needs to be accountable 
for decisions. In the absence of it and confusion over the process,  I 
had to deal with somehow getting the spins I owned published  (there 
weren't enough spin sig meetings and I can't be sitting on much if any 
because of different timezones) and asked for help in #fedora-devel and 
was told that rel-eng would approve spins and I participate in the 
meeting and got it approved. None of this was arbitrary or closed. I 
don't see how it compares at all to making decisions in FUDCon and 
claiming everyone was there.

> 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.

I don't know what you want from a report and full fledged testing and 
reporting every two weeks is just not feasible for multiple spins for me 
as a spin owner.  If you want just to know if it composes or not or if 
it is the right size and things like that, automated composes already 
give that information. Don't ask me to vote on this incomplete proposal. 
Please hash out the details in this list first and then get to the 
voting part. Premature voting would leave us with just as much confusion 
as before.

> Look, creating an official Spin is not as simple as "here is my kickstart
> file, go build this please." 

No, it is not. I have to spend a lot of time, getting that kickstart 
file in place first. It isn't a simple matter of running some composes 
and calling it a day. There is a heck lot of finicky details to take 
care of. Rawhide breaks my compose in subtle ways. You are in rel-eng. 
You know the amount of work it takes to get alpha,beta and general 
releases out. Are you really asking me to do that work every two weeks 
for multiple spins? You can't be serious.  This feels more like a 
punishment that I have to suffer because other spins broke.

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

Yes, as long as you dont arbitrarily the raise the amount of work 
someone has to do without any justification and not helping them in the 
process. I was once getting blamed for a Xfce spin compose that failed 
because Fedora infrastructure was running a updated (slightly broken) 
version of livecd-tools than the GA version. How about giving me access, 
so that I can do composes in the same environment that you do? Help me 
with this instead of just adding more overhead.

Rahul