Remaining issues for the multi desktop DVD
awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Jan 13 15:16:40 UTC 2011
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:06 -0500, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> > 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?
No, we're talking about tracking the Board's discussion of whether to
accept the multidesktop spin. That's one issue, which would be perfectly
suited to being tracked in trac...if the people *proposing* the
multidesktop project could access the ticket.
All the various issues involved in implementing the multidesktop spin
which are being discussed (I think incorrectly and counter-productively)
here could be tracked as separate tickets, either in trac or Bugzilla,
depending on the preferences of the multidesktop developers. But those
aren't Board issues, so it's not a problem, because they wouldn't need
to go into the Board trac.
> > 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?
As I said, what we need a system for keeping track of is the process of
the Board approving (or otherwise) the project. This is the sort of
thing the Board uses its trac instance for anyway, right?
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the advisory-board