On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Bill, I _do_ understand that my feature has been dropped because it
>is/was not testable and it breaks the string freeze, but I can not
>accept the way _how_ this decision was made. Let me quote the complete
>discussion about LXDE:
>
>> bpepple: Feature: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/LXDE
>> nirik: for lxde, sadly 2 packages are still in review... so I think it needs to go to 11 (ha ha).
>> dgilmore: so not testable
>> bpepple: nirik: do we know what's holding up those 2 reviews?
>> nirik: unless those packages aren't critical for testing, but I think they are.
>> nirik: bpepple: I glanced at them and there was a lot of discussion about what should be a subpackage, etc.
>> wwoods: none of the LXDE packages are even built, AFAICT
>> nirik: wwoods: some are, but thats because they were already in... like openbox is the windowmanager.
>> notting: well, if they try and add the comps group now, they'll be breaking the string freeze
>> nirik: yeah, so I think this should move back to next release... if they get it sooner great, we can trumpet it in 11
>> bpepple: nirik: +1
>> notting: +1
>> bpepple: anyone disagree with pushing LXDE, otherwise we can move on.
>
>Obviously the only one who was at least a little informed is nirik, he's
>also the only one who apologized for "the lack of communication" in a
>conversation we had yesterday. But nirik is wrong too: Those LXDE
>packages that are already in Fedora are not there because they have been
>forever but because they were part of my feature (lxtask, lxterminal,
>lxlauncher, ...).
>
>So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
>packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
>feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?

The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
that had not passed review. If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
by Beta. It's really that simple.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:20 -0700 schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
> Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't done because
> > * of the missing reviews
> > * I expected someone from FeSCo to give me a go.
> >
> This would be miscommunication, then. AFAIK, comps is open to
> maintainers to make changes to. Maintainers are expected to do that.

Wait: I'm expected to introduce a new group in comps without previous
discussion and without explicit permission from FeSCo? I remember
endless discussions about new groups here. If everybody was allowed to
make new groups whenever he wants I'm sure that comps will be hosed
pretty soon.

> We should have a rule like:
> Communication happens on the Feature Discussion Page
> or:
> Communication happens via private email between the feature owner and
> the feature wrangler
> or:
> Communication happens via the FESCo Meeting Summary
>
> so that everyone knows that there's a one-stop shop to put out and
> receive information.

+1.

> > * the wiki says [1]: "The feature owner is responsible for
> > watching any owned pages for state changes, using the wiki watch
> > feature." That's what I did, nevertheless I did not get
> > notified.
>
> I've heard that mediawiki doesn't work like people expect for watching
> pages. I'll admit that I haven't watched pages since the change to
> mediawiki so I'm not sure how this works.

Well, I got previous notifications from the wiki so I expect it to work.
Obviously my case was special: I think we are seeing both technical and
human failure here (I'm not excluding myself from the human failures).

> > * I think I did everything I could to rescue my feature. I someone
> > contacted me I would have responded.
> > * the decision was made by people who obviously did not read the
> > feature page and have no interest in the feature. If somebody
> > has not read the page he should not speak up on that topic or
> > decide about it, and if he has further question he should ask.
>
> These are a bit unfair. The Feature Page shows that the feature is not
> done. Checking bugzilla shows that the page is up-to-date in regards to
> the package review status. Beta is a deadline for features and that has
> come and gone. So the Feature is plainly not completed whether you were
> contacted or not; whether the people who commented knew all the
> particulars or only some.

Agreed, but my point is: They don't need to know all details, but they
need to read the feature page. And if the page says that 9 out of 11
packages are done I expect FeSCo members to know that, not more, not
less, but I expect somebody to not incorrectly state that none of the
packages is available.

> Can you be angry that communication wasn't good enough? Sure. But it
> works both ways -- if the packages can't be reviewed in time but they
> aren't necessary why not be proactive and take them off the list?

I could not take any of the missing packages off the list because they
all are necessary.

> If
> you feel you need them and they can be reviewed after Beta but before
> final, why not ask for an extension?

Extension of what - the Beta? I think LXDE is not Gnome or Mozilla, so
we are not giving up our schedule for it.

> If you're waiting for FESCo to
> approve the new comps group, why not ask FESCo if you can move ahead on
> that portion?

I did not yet add the new group because it does not make sense without
the mandatory lxde-common package, but I'm afraid we are going into
details here.
I wasn't aware of the fact that my comps changes are affecting string
freeze, but the FeSCo members were. They accepted my feature only one
week before feature/string freeze, so somebody could have told me.

> FESCo members should be reading the feature page but they will never be
> able to be intimately familiar with all the Features being proposed. In
> other words, we can't expect them to know any more about a feature than
> what is written on the Feature Page.

Completely agreed, but obviously this was not the case here. From what I
read in the IRC log I even doubt that everybody knew the feature page.

> If you look at the Feature Page
> and it looks like the Feature is not completed or doesn't express what
> the Feature really is or leaves out something that might lead FESCo to
> think it's not a feature it needs to be clarifies on the feature page so
> they can understand it better.

The feature page was accepted both by the feature wrangler and FeSCo, so
I assume that the page is ok and doesn't leave anything out.

> > * no FeSCo member except from Bill reacted to my previous mails.
>
> heh. I interpret that as a bunch of polite people not jumping in to say
> "Me too" but it could be frustrating.

Although I don't subscribe to Bills point of view I honor that he
answered and I have to admit that he made valid points. From the rest of
the FeSCo members I'd like to know if they had really read the feature
page and - if so - how someone could state something incorrect then. I
don't mind a couple of "me too"s and if any of the members has criticism
on my behavior I'm surely going to take that into account.

> -Toshio
>
Regards,
Christoph

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> >So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
> >packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
> >feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?
>
> The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
> that had not passed review. If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
> by Beta. It's really that simple.

As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
"really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
disappointing.

> josh
>
Regards,
Christoph

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:23:08PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> * the decision was made by people who obviously did not read the
>> feature page and have no interest in the feature. If somebody
>> has not read the page he should not speak up on that topic or
>> decide about it, and if he has further question he should ask.
>
>Fully agreed with you on this point. If FESCo members would volunteer
>to package up even some tiny MinGW package[1], then I think the
>standard of debate on the MinGW issue would be hugely improved.

If FESCo has to go and be an intimate part of a Feature in order
for it to get approved or discussed, then that is what I would
consider to be a very large failure. Reality dictates that the
9 people in FESCo do not have infinite time to do explicit
things with every single Feature that gets presented.
FESCo is a steering committee. We rely on you, the developers,
to do your part for Features.

It's the Feature owners responsibility to present clear and
concise information on the Feature. You did that rather well
for MinGW. Debate on things will naturally happen. You also
did a good job participating there. I believe I can honestly
say that you were the most active Feature owner for this release
in making sure your Feature was understood and completed.

And I'd like to point out that LXDE (and Haskell, and others)
were _approved_ for F10. They were dropped later for nothing
more than lack of following the Feature process. Not out of
spite, or lack of interest, or some evil desire to promote
only things that some Cabal cares about.

josh

(Btw, to your specific point, I cross compile packages all the
time. A large majority of the discussion was generated by me.
So I don't think your axiom holds true at all.)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:56:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>
>> >So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
>> >packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
>> >feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?
>>
>> The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
>> that had not passed review. If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
>> by Beta. It's really that simple.
>
>As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
>"really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
>work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
>feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
>disappointing.

I'm in FESCo. I read the Feature page. It was/is quite detailed. It
still, unfortunately, doesn't meet the criteria of being a Feature.

Now, that doesn't mean your work is wasted. It doesn't mean that,
assuming you get the missing packages into Fedora in time, LXDE won't
be installable. It _will_ be. All you are missing is the publicity
aspect of a Feature at that point.

Is that disappointing? Yeah, perhaps. But if you care enough (and
you seem to), then self-promoting LXDE is always a valid option.

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 13:24 -0600 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:09:12 +0200
> christoph.wickert@googlemail.com (Christoph Wickert) wrote:
>
> > Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 12:38 -0400 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> > > Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler@chello.at) said:
> > > > Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
> > > > > There are descriptions which are translated as well....
> > > >
> > > > Well, leave it blank, leave it in English (untranslated), put
> > > > just a URL for the upstream web page as the description
> > >
> > > ... or, actually follow the string freeze, and the string freeze
> > > break policy.
> >
> > The first constructive statement I hear from a FeSCo member. In fact
> > you are the _only_ FeSCo member who responded to my mail at all.
>
> Sorry, I can't speak for the rest of the FESCo members, but I have been
> really busy with my regular job and also I have been mostly in
> agreement with the posts by Bill. To expect everyone to respond to a
> post on a busy list in under 24 hours can be a bit much.

Sorry for waiting only 23:28 hours before I expected a response I
have seen these people (at least some of them) posting mails on this
list in the last 24 hours, so I assume they have read my mail too.

> > > * Package Reviews (were not fully done)
> >
> > But that's not my fault I guess.
>
> No it's not. I feel partially to blame, as I looked at those reviews
> and they looked to be in progress, but it looks like no one is formally
> reviewing them after all. ;(

This is Patrice's way of reviewing packages. He only assings the bug to
himself when he really starts the formal review. Otherwise he leaves the
package unassigned to not prevent somebody else from reviewing it.

> > > * Comps: new group with id "lxde-desktop", name "LXDE"...
> > > o mandatory: lxde-common, lxpanel, openbox, pcmanfm
> > > o default: gpicview, leafpad, lxappearance, lxtask,
> > > lxterminal, obconf, xarchiver ... (wasn't done)
> >
> > Wasn't done because
> > * of the missing reviews
> > * I expected someone from FeSCo to give me a go.
>
> A go for what? Adding the comps group?

Yes, as I wrote in reply to Toshios mail: We had endless discussions
about new groups in comps here, and IMO these were right. If every
maintainer would add new groups without permission of FeSCo and without
knowing the consequences (string freeze in my case), comps will be hosed
pretty soon.

> ...snipp...
>
> > Obviously the only one who was at least a little informed is nirik,
> > he's also the only one who apologized for "the lack of communication"
> > in a conversation we had yesterday.
>
> Yes, and I am sad there was a lack of communication, and I hope things
> can be done better next time around.

Just to clarify: I don't want to blame a single person and even if I
wanted to: You are the last one to blame, because you cared about the
feature most. Most likely because you were using LXDE on your mobile

> > But nirik is wrong too: Those LXDE
> > packages that are already in Fedora are not there because they have
> > been forever but because they were part of my feature (lxtask,
> > lxterminal, lxlauncher, ...).
>
> I'm not sure I understand this sentence... ?
> Yes, there are other lxde packages that have passed review and are
> in, I understand that.

In the meeting you said that "some [packages] are, but thats because
they were already in... like openbox is the windowmanager." This is not
correct. Of course openbox was already in Fedora, but lxterminal,
lxappearance, lxterminal and lxtask were not. They have entered Fedora
as part of my feature.

> > So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
> > packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
> > feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?
>
> No, I never claimed that. I claimed that because 2 of them are missing
> then the feature must wait. Is that incorrect?

No, that's correct, but from what wwoods and you said it _sounded_ like
none of the lx*-packages made it in. And I'm afraid that some FeSCo
members who did not read the feature page carefully enough believed that
too.
>
> > Summing it all up: My outrage is because
> > * nobody contacted my to ask me for status or to tell me the
> > feature was dropped. Nobody contacted me at all.
>
> I am very sorry for that. ;(
>
> > * the wiki says [1]: "The feature owner is responsible for
> > watching any owned pages for state changes, using the wiki
> > watch feature." That's what I did, nevertheless I did not get
> > notified.
>
> That needs to be changed/fixed. The wiki page watch is not sufficent
> here I don't think.

If it's working reliably IMO it should be sufficient. This is something
we should take care of, but it's more problem for infrastructure then
for fedora-devel-lst I think.

> > * the decision was made by people who obviously did not read the
> > feature page and have no interest in the feature. If somebody
> > has not read the page he should not speak up on that topic or
> > decide about it, and if he has further question he should ask.
>
> I don't understand this. I like the feature, I was using it on my phone
> for a while. it's a nice DE. I would love to see it in Fedora.
>
> It was not testable by Beta, so it shouldn't be advertised as a feature
> this time. I'm sorry that that is due to communication problems. ;(
> I find it very unfortunate.
>
> It's after string freeze, but you can get an exception for that:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/StringFreezePolicy
>
> So, you can get things in place, and we can advertise this as a Feature
> for F11.
>
> > * no FeSCo member except from Bill reacted to my previous mails.
>
> Sorry.

Kevin, no need for further excuses, it's ok, although I'd really like to
hear some more statements from people involved in that decision.

Nevertheless we should now focus on getting the packages into the repos
ASAP.

Regards,
Christoph

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 17:08 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:56:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> >> The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
> >> that had not passed review. If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
> >> by Beta. It's really that simple.
> >
> >As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
> >"really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
> >work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
> >feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
> >disappointing.
>
> I'm in FESCo. I read the Feature page.

Just curious: Why didn't you speak up then when somebody made an false
assumption?

> It was/is quite detailed. It
> still, unfortunately, doesn't meet the criteria of being a Feature.

You mean in general or for Fedora 10?

> Now, that doesn't mean your work is wasted. It doesn't mean that,
> assuming you get the missing packages into Fedora in time, LXDE won't
> be installable. It _will_ be. All you are missing is the publicity
> aspect of a Feature at that point.

I don't care about publicity, I don't want people to pat me on my back
or to hug me. I want these packages in Fedora, because I want to satisfy
the LXDE users. That's all.
>
> Is that disappointing? Yeah, perhaps. But if you care enough (and
> you seem to), then self-promoting LXDE is always a valid option.

OK then, let's focus our efforts on the packages then (and forget about
my first question, although I'd really like to know from somebody who
attended the meeting)
>
> josh

Regards,
Christoph

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Le mercredi 08 octobre 2008 à 22:49 +0200, Christoph Wickert a écrit :

> Wait: I'm expected to introduce a new group in comps without previous
> discussion and without explicit permission from FeSCo?

Comps is both central and under-regulated. You'll have a hard time
finding who is supposed to approve comps policy, and the files
themselves are wide open.

However out of respect both for the people working on comps
translatations, and for the people working of comps consummers, I
personnaly wouldn't make any deep restructuring such as new group
creation after test1 (to give people time to react)

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 11:47:10PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 17:08 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:56:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> >Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> >> The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
>> >> that had not passed review. If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
>> >> by Beta. It's really that simple.
>> >
>> >As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
>> >"really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
>> >work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
>> >feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
>> >disappointing.
>>
>> I'm in FESCo. I read the Feature page.
>
>Just curious: Why didn't you speak up then when somebody made an false
>assumption?

Because nobody in FESCo made that statement. Kevin had already
said "for lxde, sadly 2 packages are still in review...". The
rest of the discussion was pretty moot after that.

>
>> It was/is quite detailed. It
>> still, unfortunately, doesn't meet the criteria of being a Feature.
>
>You mean in general or for Fedora 10?

Oh, just for F10.

>> Now, that doesn't mean your work is wasted. It doesn't mean that,
>> assuming you get the missing packages into Fedora in time, LXDE won't
>> be installable. It _will_ be. All you are missing is the publicity
>> aspect of a Feature at that point.
>
>I don't care about publicity, I don't want people to pat me on my back
>or to hug me. I want these packages in Fedora, because I want to satisfy
>the LXDE users. That's all.

Cool. Go forth and conquer!

josh

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 22:49 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> Agreed, but my point is: They don't need to know all details, but they
> need to read the feature page. And if the page says that 9 out of 11
> packages are done I expect FeSCo members to know that, not more, not
> less, but I expect somebody to not incorrectly state that none of the
> packages is available.

Umm, no FESCo member did state that. A member of the QA did, and a
FESCo member (nirik) corrected him.

Later,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list