-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
The current Product Requirements Document[1] for the Server Edition is considerably out of date. Based on discussion in the recent thread on FreeIPA release criteria[2], it's clear that its existence is actively hampering our efforts to modernize our deliverables.
I took a look at the PRD with an eye towards modernizing it, but the truth of the matter is that it basically needs a total rewrite. It is fundamentally written around a core concept of "Server Roles" that have been entirely abandoned by the Server Edition efforts. As a result, I feel that the PRD needs to be archived entirely and not relied on as a source of truth.
What I propose is this: 1) Archive the Server PRD, noting that in broad strokes it describes our aspirational goals but differs entirely on implementation.
2) Update all items on the Fedora Release Criteria so that they no longer reference the PRD. Any requirements that Server SIG wishes to retain must be moved to the Release Criteria wiki pages and treated as the canonical source of truth.
I feel that this will be better for the Server Edition in the long-term, as the Release Criteria pages are much better maintained than the PRD and we can be both more flexible and more visible with changes.
Thoughts?
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org...
On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 16:27 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
The current Product Requirements Document[1] for the Server Edition is considerably out of date. Based on discussion in the recent thread on FreeIPA release criteria[2], it's clear that its existence is actively hampering our efforts to modernize our deliverables.
I took a look at the PRD with an eye towards modernizing it, but the truth of the matter is that it basically needs a total rewrite. It is fundamentally written around a core concept of "Server Roles" that have been entirely abandoned by the Server Edition efforts. As a result, I feel that the PRD needs to be archived entirely and not relied on as a source of truth.
What I propose is this:
- Archive the Server PRD, noting that in broad strokes it describes our
aspirational goals but differs entirely on implementation.
- Update all items on the Fedora Release Criteria so that they no longer
reference the PRD. Any requirements that Server SIG wishes to retain must be moved to the Release Criteria wiki pages and treated as the canonical source of truth.
I feel that this will be better for the Server Edition in the long-term, as the Release Criteria pages are much better maintained than the PRD and we can be both more flexible and more visible with changes.
Thoughts?
I'm opposed to this. The purpose of the PRD is to define, at the high level, what the Server edition is meant to be and do. This is *not* (and should not be) the purpose of the release criteria. The release criteria were written with reference to the PRD, and this was a good system. Trying to write the actual definition of what Server should be *as* release criteria, with no reference to work from, seems to me a nightmare that's likely to result in text that doesn't work very well as release criteria *or* as a definition of Server's intent.
IIRC, at the time the whole Fedora.next proposal was discussed and ultimately approved, whoever was in charge (was it still the Board at that time, or already the Council?) actually required that the editions (whatever we were calling them at the time) write a PRD and a tech spec (and then reviewed and signed off on them). I think it would be clearly against the spirit of the system for us to just unilaterally decide we no longer need a PRD and are going to shoehorn everything into the release criteria. So I also suggest it would at least be *clearly* wrong for us to do this without requesting approval from the Council.
It honestly seems kinda bizarre to me to say "well, it seems we need to completely rethink the fundamental approach of the Server edition...so let's not do that properly but just throw away the document that's supposed to do that work and try to write it all up as release criteria instead!" Surely if we need to rethink how we conceive of Server from the ground up, writing a new PRD would be *exactly* the right way to do that?
I'm happy to help draft revisions to the PRD, but I don't think it's a job for a single person to do, honestly, because it's not just a case of writing down something we already know and agree on, is it? It seems clear that "Server roles" as currently defined/implemented are going away, but it's not clear - at least to me - what we actually want to replace them with. I'm happy to work on the text that describes the plan, but I'd like to know what the plan *is* first, and be clear that we all agree on it.
Thanks.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 02:21:05PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm happy to help draft revisions to the PRD, but I don't think it's a job for a single person to do, honestly, because it's not just a case of writing down something we already know and agree on, is it? It seems clear that "Server roles" as currently defined/implemented are going away, but it's not clear - at least to me - what we actually want to replace them with. I'm happy to work on the text that describes the plan, but I'd like to know what the plan *is* first, and be clear that we all agree on it.
Yeah, I agree with Adam pretty much entirely here. If we're going to keep Server as an Edition — and I think we need to, for all the reasons we asked for it in the first place — it needs a PRD. I'm also happy to help refresh that. Maybe this is a Flock session?
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Matthew Miller -
Stephen Gallagher