Disappointed: My feature was removed without notifying me

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 22:56 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 08.10.2008, 16:47 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> > >So the decision was made under the assumption that _none_ of the LXDE
> > >packages has ever passed a review. How can somebody who has read the
> > >feature page claim that? Why did nobody answer him back?
> > 
> > The decision was made under the _fact_ that the Feature lacked packages
> > that had not passed review.  If they aren't all there, it can't be tested
> > by Beta.  It's really that simple.
> 
> As I wrote in a previous mail: I don't challenge that, but for me it not
> "really that simple" but "really that disappointing". I've put a lot of
> work into the feature and when I see that people hardly seem to read the
> feature page or don't care about informing the feature owner is just
> disappointing

It is unfortunate that you didn't get informed properly. We'll make an
effort to ensure that kind of thing doesn't happen again. I apologise
for that, and I suspect I speak for the rest of FESCo when I do so.

One thing we can do in future to make that situation better is Cc the
feature owners when the meeting agenda is sent to fedora-devel-list. I
hope we can manage that.

The other thing we should do, of course, is work out _why_ you didn't
get the notification. Do you get _any_ notifications? Was it just this
one which was missing? Is there someone from the infrastructure team who
can look into that? ISTR you said that you were the last person to edit
the page before the missing notification -- so it wasn't _expected_ that
you didn't get notified?


We appreciate the work you've put into packaging LXDE. We certainly
don't mean to suggest otherwise, and we are pleased to see the packages
in Fedora 10. (Well, I {do,don't,am}, and again I'm being presumptuous).

Let's get the final two packages reviewed -- and that's another area
where we could do with some improvement, because failing to approve
packages really _is_ verging on the 'deletionism' you spoke of. But
that's a separate discussion.

And then if everything's working and the only thing that's missing is an
entry in comps which lets you choose it in the installer, I think
there's a fairly strong case for having an exception to the string
freeze -- especially since the translation of 'LXDE' is going to be
'LDXE' in most cases ;)  We'll see...

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse at intel.com                              Intel Corporation