Summary/Minutes for Wednesday's FESCo meeting (2012-12-05)

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 12/07/2012 11:13 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 7.12.2012 11:13, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" napsal(a):
>> On 12/07/2012 09:28 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>
>>> Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create 
>>> feature page for it. Period.
>>
>> That describes the current state and is your point of view.
>>
>> To me an "Feature" is a completely different thing.
>
> Could you be more specific please?

For example major release for a component or a group of components

>
>>
>>>
>>> I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and impact, 
>>> when it will be autocategorized by feedback on ML. 
>>
>> It's common knowledge that you cant autocategorized by feedback on 
>> Mailing list regardless what's it's for. ( For obvious reasons )
>

You have to be subscribed to d the relevant mailing list and not 
ignoring the individual(s) responsible for the feature etc..

> They are probably not so obvious to me. But I can imagine several 
> types of responses on ML:

And what I'm pointing on are using mailing list for that.

>
>>
>>> The only think matters is that the Feature is widely advertised and 
>>> that the community can provide early feedback. 
>>
>> No that is not enough because in the end you will only get feedback 
>> from users of those feature not necessary from developers of other 
>> components that might get affected by that feature.
>
> Yes, nobody never cares until it is not late. I can't change that. But 
> I'm trying. Announcing features in devel/devel-announce is definitely 
> step in good direction.

What about all the other communities the feature might affect and the 
relevant party that is not subscribed devel/devel-announce in those 
communites?

>>
>>> Please avoid bureaucracy. I would realy hate to see something like 
>>> FFCo (Fedora Feature Committee), which would decided if feature is 
>>> feature, major change, alteration, evolution or disruption, since it 
>>> really doesn't matter.
>>
>> FESCO is for that, as in to accept,decide and determine the wider 
>> impact an feature might have to the whole projects eco system and 
>> arguably the entity that's responsible for it to be integrated into 
>> the distribution in as painless manner for users and developers 
>> alike. ( from my pov ).
>
> FESCo's responsibilities does not change at all. The benefit will be 
> that FESCo will be able to spent more time paying attention to 
> features that are worth of attention. Don't forget that this 
> discussion is initiative of FESCo members, who feels to be overwhelmed 
> by non-important features, not mine.
>

Yes and to do so you need to first and foremost know what is considered 
an feature and what you mentioned "Feature is something somebody 
considers important enough to create feature page for it. Period. " 
leaves them in the exactly same place as it is now.

As I have said before we cant fix the feature process until we have 
determined what's considered an feature in the first place and if the 
feature process is mandatory or not.

JBG