Any duration will get people arguing whether it's too long or
too short.
To me 6 months is a 80/20 equilibrium point, plus it makes very easy to
memorize and predict releases (one for the Summer, one for the Winter).
Any change requires discussion. That's how change happens. I'm glad you
feel good about a schedule that's twice a year, but I don't think that's
enough time for what we're trying to get done.
Just skip one release, branch and you get 9 months to work without
being
disturbed too much. It seems to me that a fair amount of users follow that
pattern too and don't update every 6 months, but every year or so (that would
be an interesting poll to set up on the fedora web site I think).
it doesn't work that way b/c some of the stuff I want to do would stall
out plans for anaconda and pup, as well, it plays into a lot of doodads
we want to get more time moving on.
these projects are not islands unto themselves, they involve other plans
too. Release coordination should be a discussion otherwise it's not
really an integrated release.
-sv