Fedora 11 schedule proposal

[Jeremy Katz]

On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 16:10 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 02:25:18PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 14:22 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Jeremy Katz (katzj at redhat.com) said: 
> > > > > So, given that you already say we historically make up the slippage
> > > > > over two release cycles, you're violently objecting over.... a week?
> > > > 
> > > > We make it up over two release cycles because we targeted to get back on
> > > > track for the first one and then slip for it and then get kind of close
> > > > for the second one :)
> > > 
> > > Sure, but I'm not sure pretending we won't slip is viable. If we do
> > > take the 'attempt to make it up over two cycles' method, then this proposed
> > > schedule is only a 1-1/2 to 2 week adjustment to that. So I don't think
> > > it's that far out of line.
> > 
> > Until we slip from the schedule, at which point it's more like 4-5
> > weeks.
> 
> I think this assertion assumes the more granular revision in freeze
> periods is not going to have any effect on slippage.

That's true, it does.  But that's because in the land of risk
management, you want to err on the side of what has happened in the
past[1] as opposed to what you hope will be the outcome of a new process
or change to an existing one.

Jeremy

[1] Well, there are tools that let you do probabilistic estimation based
on optimistic estimates of the future.  But you still have to take into
account the past norms and outliers when doing so.