Requesting feedback for unaccepted Fedora features

[John Poelstra]

Dear Proposed Feature Owners,

The following feature pages are in CategoryProposedFedora9 which 
indicates that the feature owner is requesting that FESCo vote on them 
at the next meeting.  I have not raised these features to FESCo for a 
vote because certain parts of the pages are incomplete and it doesn't 
make sense for FESCo to review a feature when all the information is not 
present.

1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC4.3 -- need a link to owner 
contact information; contingency plan and release notes sections are 
blank; need to discuss impact on mass rebuild of Fedora 9 (2008-01-02)

2) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/EFI -- a few sections still 
need to be completed (2007-01-14)

3) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/JigdoRelease -- some of the 
TBDs need to be completed, particularly "contingency plan" and 
"dependencies" (2008-01-03)

4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureEncryptedFilesystems -- 
documentation and release notes sections are empty (2008-01-14)


In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in their 
writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9.  If you have no 
intention of completing them for Fedora 9,
please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no 
confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9.  These features will never be 
raised for acceptance by FESCo.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureVolumeControl
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureRPMYumEnhancements
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RandrSupport
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ChristophWickert/FedoraLite
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirstboot
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecurityAudit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PreUpgrade
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NetworkManager-MobileBroadband
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/HandwritingRecognizer

Thank you,
John

_______________________________________________
Fedora-devel-announce mailing list
Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce

[Chuck Anderson]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:21PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
>  In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in
> their 
>  writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9.  If you have no intention 
>  of completing them for Fedora 9,
>  please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no 
>  confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9.  These features will never be 
>  raised for acceptance by FESCo.
>
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm 
So what happens if these never get officially "accepted" as Fedora 9 
features?  Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM?  Who 
is going to enforce that?

[Casey Dahlin]

Chuck Anderson wrote:
>  On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:21PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
>    
> > In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in their 
> > writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9.  If you have no intention 
> > of completing them for Fedora 9,
> > please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no 
> > confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9.  These features will never be 
> > raised for acceptance by FESCo.
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm
> >     
>
>  So what happens if these never get officially "accepted" as Fedora 9 
>  features?  Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM?  Who 
>  is going to enforce that?
>
>     
This is a good point. A couple of these features have kind of happened 
anyway, and are now easier to run with than they are to revert. What do 
we do about this?

--CJD

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:16:34 -0500
Casey Dahlin <cjdahlin(a)ncsu.edu&gt; wrote:

>  > So what happens if these never get officially
> "accepted" as Fedora
>  > 9 features?  Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM?
>  > Who is going to enforce that?
>  >
>  >     
>  This is a good point. A couple of these features have kind of
>  happened anyway, and are now easier to run with than they are to
>  revert. What do we do about this? 

Well, depends on the feature really.  When we talked about this last
time we said we'd handle it on a case by case basis.  I feel that xul
and gdm really just needs the feature owner to fill in some blanks to
complete the feature so that we have stuff to properly tout and shout
and beat Ubuntu to the punch with.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?

[Matthias Clasen]

On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 21:16 -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>  Chuck Anderson wrote:
>  > On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:21PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
>  >   
>  >> In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in their 
>  >> writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9.  If you have no intention 
>  >> of completing them for Fedora 9,
>  >> please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no 
>  >> confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9.  These features will never be 
>  >> raised for acceptance by FESCo.
>  >>
>  >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner
>  >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm
>  >>     
>  >
>  > So what happens if these never get officially "accepted" as Fedora 9 
>  > features?  Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM?  Who 
>  > is going to enforce that?
>  >
>  >   
>  This is a good point. A couple of these features have kind of happened 
>  anyway, and are now easier to run with than they are to revert. What do 
>  we do about this? 
We are not at feature freeze time yet, so it is not time to talk about
reverting anything yet. Also, not being accepted is not the same as
being rejected to the point of reversal. First and foremost it means
that the feature will not be touted as one of the major breakthroughs 
of F9. 

Looking at the two features that have been cited, we have every
intention to finish them for F9. I assume that finishing the feature
itself takes priority over keeping the wiki page uptodate...

[John Poelstra]

Chuck Anderson said the following on 01/23/2008 06:00 PM Pacific Time:
>  On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:21PM -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
> > In addition, the following features are targeted for Fedora 9 in their 
> > writeup, but are not in CategoryProposedFedora9.  If you have no intention 
> > of completing them for Fedora 9,
> > please remove Fedora 9 as the targeted release so that there is no 
> > confusion that it will not be in Fedora 9.  These features will never be 
> > raised for acceptance by FESCo.
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewGdm
>  
>  So what happens if these never get officially "accepted" as Fedora 9 
>  features?  Do we rip out XULRunner and back down to the old GDM?  Who 
>  is going to enforce that?
>   
NOTHING. They stay there indefinitely.  The important distinction here 
is that these features are in *CategoryProposedFeature*--which means 
they are NOT being proposed for acceptance for a release.

I have been raising them here to bring attention to them because some 
people have not followed the complete process described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy and had thought their 
feature was on the radar for acceptance to Fedora 9.

For the Fedora 10 development process I will not send out these 
notifications as hopefully by then we will all understand the process :)

John

[Karsten Hopp]

John Poelstra schrieb:
>  Dear Proposed Feature Owners,
>  
>  The following feature pages are in CategoryProposedFedora9 which 
>  indicates that the feature owner is requesting that FESCo vote on them 
>  at the next meeting.  I have not raised these features to FESCo for a 
>  vote because certain parts of the pages are incomplete and it doesn't 
>  make sense for FESCo to review a feature when all the information is not 
>  present.
>   
...
>  4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureEncryptedFilesystems
> -- 
>  documentation and release notes sections are empty (2008-01-14)
>   
I've added / moved some stuff to the documentation section and added some release
notes.

  Karsten