Fedora Board Recap 2010-10-25

[Máirín Duffy]

Hi Josh,

On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 21:28 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Those criteria are still listed as Draft.  Odd.

I'm not sure why the draft status wasn't removed.
> 
> I note that rel-eng commitment is part of that criteria.  I am not in
> a position to speak for rel-eng, but given the pending release I very
> much doubt that rel-eng will commit to doing this spin for F14.
> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Also, it said the media targets must be approved by Beta.  The
> multi-spin, uh, spin was not available at Beta.
> 
> Further, it did not have a test plan approved by Fedora QA.
> Realistically speaking, I don't believe QA has the resources to be
> involved in the writing of test plans for every spin wishing to
> produce media.  They continue to have enough trouble with the default
> spins.  However, the criteria as listed are not met for the
> multi-image DVD.
> 
> Accordingly, this spin is not approved for F14 due to the lack of
> approval from all parties and failure to meet the criteria.  Is that
> an accurate description of what the Board decided?  If so, why
> couldn't the Board just clearly state that?

See this line:

"(Jared) If it's built on our infrastructure, if $STRAWMAN is okay
helping getting it built & hosted on our infrastructure.... in this
specific case if they meet all requirements outside of schedule/timing,
then yes they can move forward."

So the Board basically doesn't have issues with this media moving
forward as long as it follows the requirements outside of the waived
scheduling/timing requirements. So it is approved if it meets those
requirements - and there's a possibility someone on releng could agree
to help it out.

> As an aside, I strenuously object to the requirement of "Fedora themed
> boot screens, or not boot screens at all."  There is no rationale
> listed for this requirement and it prevents spins from offering a spin
> influenced variant of artwork (think the default screen, but with a
> KDE logo).  Most importantly, it precludes the use of the generic
> artwork that is freely available, thereby preventing the proliferation
> of his AWESOME BEEFY-NESS, the Hot Dog Guy.  I find this a travesty.
> I strongly urge the Board to reconsider this requirement, with
> preference on removing it entirely.

I'm a little confused about this though. Anybody is free, of course, to
produce awesome royal beefy-ness spins, but is it appropriate for those
to be produced using funding provided by Fedora to promote Fedora?

~m