Agenda for Server WG Meeting (2014-02-25)

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So we have less than a week left to put together our technical
specification for Fedora 21. We've had some discussion on picking the
set of Roles to focus on for the first release.

As I see it, we need to discuss and settle on at least the following
items:

* Target roles for F21 (vote already underway)
 * Install media and high-level view of default packages
 * Rel-eng, QA, etc. needs (There will be a separate call for help
going out on this)

For reference, the Workstation WG has put together an excellent
technical specification document[1] and we should probably borrow from
it as much as possible (both for uniformity and reduction of effort).

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlMLYAMACgkQeiVVYja6o6OyzQCdFSYZTEzLYgyXRrLxpzo5J72G
> wJwAn0i53R6DhikDlTKjIbfsxeRYURgE
> =zfkV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Adam Williamson]

On 2014-02-24 07:06, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> So we have less than a week left to put together our technical
> specification for Fedora 21. We've had some discussion on picking the
> set of Roles to focus on for the first release.
>
> As I see it, we need to discuss and settle on at least the following
> items:
> Target roles for F21 (vote already underway)
> Install media and high-level view of default packages
> Rel-eng, QA, etc. needs (There will be a separate call for help
>
> going out on this)
>
> For reference, the Workstation WG has put together an excellent
> technical specification document[1] and we should probably borrow from
> it as much as possible (both for uniformity and reduction of effort).

The QA and releng needs don't, I think, need to be wired into the 
product spec - we just need to take the capacity we have for doing QA 
and releng tasks into account in defining the spec, i.e. don't bite off 
more than we can chew :) I think the desktop spec does a pretty good job 
of this, none of it gives me the screaming heebie jeebies.

I think the main job of the technical spec is going to be to define the 
components we intend to use to actually implement the 'role' design, as 
that seems to be the main 'unique feature' of the server product at 
least at present. As you say, I think the desktop spec is along the 
right lines: take the high-level goals from the PRD and define more 
precisely what we're actually going to build/use to reach them.