Remaining issues for the multi desktop DVD

Máirín Duffy duffy at
Thu Jan 13 15:06:25 UTC 2011

On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 14:58 +0000, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 02:34 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > > Mailing lists are terrible for this kind of thing.  Multiple people
> > > chime in and discussion goes off in infinite directions and threads.  It
> > > is nearly impossible to track all tangents properly without some backend
> > > system to manage the feedback and keep the proposal current, like a wiki
> > > page.
> > 
> > Or an issue tracker. ;)
> To Jesse: I think you're clearly off in keeping on presenting a Wiki
> page as the right way to track specific issues. Clearly, most of the
> Fedora project doesn't believe it is. Obviously the Board doesn't
> believe it is, or it wouldn't have a trac (private or otherwise) - it'd
> just use a Wiki instance (private or otherwise). Just about every other
> group in Fedora uses trac to do this, not Wiki pages. 

There are groups within Fedora that use the wiki to track projects to
good effect. The websites team and design team are two. Probably because
trac really sucks for posting mockups but mediawiki rocks at this...
It's pretty easy to have a trac instance set up for a Fedora group but
less than trivial to have an entire mediawiki instance set up, isn't

Surely wiki pages are superior to mailing lists which I think was
Jesse's point.

> trac is clearly
> superior for the specific goal of tracking projects. The debate about
> how locked down the Board's trac instance should be is one thing, but by
> keeping on lobbing in 'use a Wiki page' into the discussion you're
> really just confusing things. A wiki page is not a sensible solution to
> issue tracking. A wiki page and a trac ticket can *complement* each
> other - you can document the general proposal on a Wiki page, and use a
> trac ticket to track discussion of the proposal - but a Wiki page can't
> replace a trac ticket.

A trac ticket corresponds to an issue but aren't we talking about
something a bit more substantial than a single issue? E.g., a
multidesktop project that may have many issues to track?

> Basically, as long as there's no issue tracking system for Board issues
> that non-Board members can access, there's a deficiency that Wiki pages
> can't solve, and it *does* lead to all the issues Christoph identified
> (confusion, the same discussions happening five times, non-Board members
> having no way to know exactly where a given proposal stands and what's
> needed to move it along, and so on).

I don't understand

The Board is being looked to for approval, not to do the work. So why
would you organize a project like this on the board trac rather than say
the ambassadors' trac? 


More information about the advisory-board mailing list