critera proposal/discussion: FESCo blockers

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:01 -0700
Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:

> So, just a phrasing thing, the criteria are mostly written in the form
> 'XXX must be the case', not 'XXX is added to the blocker list'. So
> perhaps:
> 
> 'All bugs deemed by FESCo to block the milestone release must be
> fixed.'
> 
> Would be enough. My suggestion used the terms 'issues' and 'addressed'
> as weasel words we've found useful before - in the case where we work
> around a bug, rather than fixing it, we can call that 'addressing' it
> - but I don't really mind writing it that way and just using Common
> Sense (tm). I think specifying FESCo's current decision-making
> mechanism - majority vote - in the criterion is a mistake, as it's at
> least theoretically plausible that FESCo could change its
> decision-making mechanism in future, and then the criterion would
> need to be updated for no good reason. All that matters to the
> blocker process is that 'FESCo Hath Deemed It Thus'. The mechanism by
> which FESCo Deems things is out of scope.

Sure. Works for me. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20130621/d9bb2a01/attachment.sig>