feature process should require release notes/docs

[Karsten 'quaid' Wade]

In preparation to asking FESCo to amend the feature process, I'd like to
find out if there is going to be an uprising from y'all against the
idea.

Currently, the feature process does not specifically require release
notes or documentation, nor provide for FESCo to block a feature because
of missing or poor feature documentation.  We think the feature
policy[1] should be amended[2] to require this.  

It is clear in the spirit and the letter of the current policy that some
amount of content from the feature owners is required.  The policy makes
these related points:

        * It's a feature, we're trying to make noise about it, and the
        rest of the world needs meaningful content about the feature
        
        * One of the specific goals of the feature process is to make
        release notes easier to create, as well as more accurate
        
        * Completing all the parts of the feature process demonstrates
        the commitment to seeing the feature through to release

What could be covered in a release note is documented here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/WhatToDocument

Never seen that page before?  It is linked from here:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/ReleaseNotes/Process

Thanks for your attention to this.  A great distribution is made even
greater by the quality of its documentation.  The Fedora release notes
have been an outstanding community effort for many years.  The process
we have created in Docs allows a small effort from many of you[3] to
snowball into the best release notes of any Linux distribution.

- Karsten

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy

[2] Specific amendments:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy#Proposing_Official_Features
  First sentence:  should => must
  Item 11: Note added:  "This item cannot be made ''not applicable''."

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy#Dropping_Features
  Add a bullet that reads:  "Feature stand-alone wiki page is
incomplete."

[3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats

-- 
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080205/73a3f3f6/attachment-0002.bin