multi-desktop DVD criteria

Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert at
Sat Jan 15 18:49:47 UTC 2011

Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 14:17 -0700 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: 
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 04:51, Christoph Wickert
> <christoph.wickert at> wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 01:07 -0600 schrieb Christofer C. Bell:
> >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Christoph Wickert
> >> <christoph.wickert at> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Last but not least I'd like to point out that *none* of the current
> >> > media meets the requirements. With that list we must not give out any
> >> > physical media.
> >>
> >> "This page is a draft only. It is still under construction and content
> >> may change. Do not rely on the information on this page."
> >>
> >> You've pointed out several times, in several threads, that the current
> >> Fedora media does not meet the posted policy and that under the posted
> >> policy we should stop distributing any media.  Please stop posting
> >> this as it's disingenuous and, frankly, FUD.
> >
> > You think it's FUD? Please allow me to name some unmet items then:
> Lets all back away from the imflammatory language.

Please tell this Christofer and not me, I was not the one to introduce
the term "FUD", I just quoted him.

> 1) It is a draft.
> 2) It has been said to use as a guideline for F15.

The EMEA ambassadors are still targeting F14, so can we ignore the media
handout requirements?

> > "Media must have Fedora-themed artwork"
> >
> > By the time they get approved, the artwork is not ready yet. I wonder
> > why I have to present the artwork as a requirement for approval.
> Use old fedora themed artwork. It has been accepts and covers this.

Ok, then all that is missing is the wording from Jared.

> > "Artwork must clearly describe what is on the media. Example: "Fedora
> > Desktop, i686 architecture"
> >
> > WTF is the "Fedora Desktop"? The other desktops are named KDE, LXDE and
> > Xfce, nobody knows what the "Fedora Desktop" is. And why does the
> > install DVD have the icons of Xfce and LXDE on it, when these desktops
> > are not on the DVD?
> Fedora Desktop has been accepted by various groups as the Gnome
> desktop. I don't like it, you don't like it, but guess what.. bringing
> it up every couple of emails just makes sure this turns into something
> people will only be satisfied by leaving Fedora.

The board has accepted it and the desktop group has, too, but many
others opposed. Even Max as our formal FPL has brought up this topic
less than three weeks ago, but nothing has happened.

But it's not about how many groups have accepted it or not, it is not
about whether I like it or not ether. As mentioned several times before,
I agree we should have a default and I think it should be GNOME. But
this does not change the fact that the term "Desktop Live" is a poor
description. If you were to do booth service on events you'd know that
"What is on this media?" is *the* most frequent asked question.

If the requirements include a "clear description", then this should be
applied to all media. A clear description is self explanatory, we cannot
expect people to know that GNOME is the default.

> > "If Fedora Design Team produced artwork is desired, this must be added
> > to Fedora Design Team schedule by Alpha."
> >
> > Spin owners cannot add something to the design team#s schedule, they can
> > only file tickets in their trac, but this is not a guarantee that the
> > artwork is done in in time. I have tickets sitting in that trac for
> > several releases now.
> I would say if it has been entered into the trac by alpha and clearly
> marked as being needed you have met that.

Fine with me, but that does not fix the problem with the media handout
requirements: Who is to add something to the design team's schedule?
What is the workflow for a requester to have something added?

We only have requirements but now workflow and no help how to meet them.
If I am to follow that list, I need clear instructions of whom to
contact, where to request what and so on.

> > "Must have an approved test plan on file with the Fedora Quality
> > Assurance team
> > Test plan should be written involving members of the QA team
> > Test plan must be executed by someone, with review by a member of the QA
> > team. NB: this requires at least 2 people to participate in the testing.
> > The above must be in place in sufficient time to allow testing, and
> > remediation of uncovered issues, to occur"
> >
> > *None* of this was is part of the spins process.
> It should be. And if it means we drop all our spins... I am ok with that.

We not only would need to drop our spins but all media if not Fedora
completely. We have test cases that cover the desktops, regardless of
from what media it was installed.

I'm not saying that we don't need testing, but this is another example
that the current media handout requirements were gathered by the board
without proper cooperation with other teams such as QA. Adam already
pointed that out.

> > "The list of SRPMs used in the creation of the ISO image must be
> > recorded in the correspondingsource git tree"
> >
> > *None* of the media we ship ATM is in that tree, see
> >;a=tree;f=srpmlists;hb=HEAD
> Then we need to fix that. Who can do it and what is needed. Since this
> is a legal requirement, we need to fix this asap.

Nice we agree on that. I wrote that the board should enforce this, but
so far nobody seems to have approached rel-eng. Once the lists are in
git it is easy for me to build the list of packages I was asked to

Summing it up I'd like to say that I wish the board works with all
groups in Fedora to produce a list like the media handout requirements.
This does not seem to have happened: QA was not asked, rel-eng nether,
and the design team is only mentioned in this list because Mo is member
of both the board and the design team. Not to mention the spins SIG who
produces the spins or the ambassadors who are to distribute the media.

For the future I wish the board would better try to involve all affected
parties. And if board members ask questions they could answered
themselves by looking at the prototype I produced 3 months ago, I think
this is a pretty poor performance.


More information about the advisory-board mailing list