Remaining issues for the multi desktop DVD
christoph.wickert at googlemail.com
Thu Jan 13 19:43:56 UTC 2011
Am Donnerstag, den 13.01.2011, 10:06 -0500 schrieb Máirín Duffy:
> 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...
I think you are right here, trac is not suitable for these teams and
this might also explain why the trac instance of the design team is not
looked after. But I doubt my design requests would be more successful if
I created a wiki page for them. A wiki is good for communication inside
the team while outsiders are usually better off with filing a ticket.
> 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
I think we are not talking about this here as the teams don't have to
care about doing the setup.
> Surely wiki pages are superior to mailing lists which I think was
> Jesse's point.
Funny fact: So far nobody has moved any points raised in this discussion
Some statements even make me wonder if people looked at the wiki page
I've set up or if the wiki page will end up on the next meeting agenda.
> 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?
Sure there are more issues to solve, but most of them are not the boards
business. The ticket in the board's trac should *only* deal with the
things necessary to grant the trademark approval, these are the things
outlined in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Media_Handout_Requirements
I have been working on 3 different spins before and I feel that the
board has already gone way too far in this process compared to what was
one or two years ago. The spins had their wiki page, they were approve
be the spins SIG and the board then looked over the wiki page and
approved it based on the decision of the SIG. I really wonder why the
board no longer seems to trust other groups or persons, in this case the
ambassadors or the creators of the DVD.
> 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?
Because there are points specific to the approval while there are other
questions important for the ambassadors. The ambassadors have already
figured out their part, e.g. what they want, the quantities (in the
meeting and the wiki) and the budget (in FAmsCo trac). Now the board is
to care about the approval, not more, not less.
More information about the advisory-board