Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting

[Till Maas]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:25:06PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> 
> > On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> ===================================
> >> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
> >> ===================================
> >>
> >>
> >> Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
> >> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-03-09/fesco.2010-03-09-20.00.log.html
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Wow. That has to be the most depressing and apalling read ever -
> > seeing FESCo, the steering committee of a project which has done so
> > much good and made so much progress, tear strips off each other like
> > that. If FESCo is this dysfunctional, I really think there's a problem
> > larger than the number of regressions in our updates. FESCo, you
> > really need to start working together, you're presently not doing the
> > job you were elected to do.
> 
> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that 
> meeting.
> 
> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?

IMHO the whole discussion lacks "scientific methods" or common sense,
e.g. there are no hard facts presented about how each proposal would
influence the updates process. E.g. there are no numbers about how many
broken updates from testing to stable happend, how often updates are
directly pushed to stable, how many people to use updates-testing of
F11, F12 and F13? There are nearly no facts, so everyone is just
guessing and many people are just ignoring objections. E.g. several
proposals require a certain amount of karma, but nobody seems to care,
that packages do (did) not get that much comments. And instead of first
improving the amount of comments, before taking the next step, it's just
ignored. This improved with my script for F12 and F13, but the only
available metrics say that the overall amount of comments has increased,
but still it is unknown how many packages are how well covered.

Regards
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100310/4a403ca7/attachment.bin