Fedora Board Recap 2010-10-25

[Josh Boyer]

2010/10/27 Máirín Duffy <duffy at fedoraproject.org>:
> On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 22:19 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> 2010/10/27 Máirín Duffy <duffy at fedoraproject.org>:
>> > Would you feel better if the Board said "not approved for F14"?
>>
>> Yes, absolutely.
>>
>> > We felt
>> > bad because there weren't guidelines in place when we were asked, but I
>> > hope the requestors are under no illusions that this is anything but a
>> > late-in-the-cycle request.
>>
>> You felt bad, so you drafted requirements, and waived half of them?
>> That is not straight-forward at all.
>>
>> > If anyone is afraid of blame please place the blame on me. It's my fault
>> > if this doesn't ship for F14. Nobody should be blaming rel-eng for
>> > *anything* here, nor setting them up to be blamed.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with placing blame.  It has everything to do with
>> the Board answering a direct question with a direct answer.  IMHO,
>> that answer should have been:
>>
>> "This request is being made too late in the development cycle to be
>> approved for F14.  However, the Board recognizes that we lack clear
>> and concise criteria around such request and will be addressing this
>> shortly to close this gap for future releases."
>
> We sort of said this in the discussion on this list before the board
> meeting minutes we're discussing and were met with a lot of protest.

So?  You're telling a person that wants to do something that the
project isn't in a state to actually get that done.  Of course they're
going to protest.  That doesn't mean the Board would be wrong saying
that.

josh