Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 12:42:58AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
> 
> On 04/18/2012 09:54 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 
> > Right now I don't think ARM's doing a great job of that [being part of
> > the Fedora community]. Your meetings  happen on the phone and aren't
> minuted.
> 
> I am sorry that you feel that way. I think it is important to add some
> context to the point about meetings (I'm not sure how one generalizes
> that into a broader statement). We have meetings that are on the phone,
> and on IRC, on #fedora-arm, which you are welcome to join (though I
> understand that this is unusual to have a phone call and the timing
> might not be convenient to everyone's schedule - the current time was
> collaboratively chosen by everyone involved in Fedora ARM). We use the
> standard meeting bot, and we have an intention to move to
> #fedora-meeting in due course. For now we're still using #fedora-arm,
> but if it's important that we move meetings from now on, we can do that.

#fedora-meeting is a given, but really, other parts of the project are 
able to function by having meetings on IRC - It's important to have a 
written record of not only what decisions were made, but also why they 
were made.

> > I've got no insight at all into 
> > how your development process is progressing.
> 
> I'm glad to see that you care deeply about the topic. You're welcome to
> join #fedora-arm, participate in the discussions, join the mailing list,
> and reply to any of the discussions there. You're also welcome to start
> new conversations, or raise issues on IRC any time you like. It might
> also be relatively easy for us to arrange to get you some hardware that
> you can run the ARM port on if you would like to help?

I don't have the time or the inclination to be involved in the ARM port 
at the moment. What I *do* want is to have some visibility into what 
you're doing in order to reduce the probability of decisions being made 
that are incompatible with some other aspect of the distribution. The 
onus is on you to make sure that people are aware of relevant decisions 
you've made.

> > At minimum you should be 
> > meeting in #fedora-meeting and posting minutes to arm@ - ideally you'd 
> > be Cc:ing them to devel at .
> 
> Feel free to add that to the list of requirements for SA promotion.

No, because it's not a requirement. In theory an SA could be perfectly 
suited for PA promotion without any real involvement with the Fedora 
community. It'd just be massively more difficult.

> > If you're doing everything transparently
> 
> We are doing everything transparently. Some times it might happen on the
> "wrong" channel, and we might screw up with regard to certain
> expectations, but there is no attempt to be non-transparent.

I appreciate that there's no deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny, but 
that's not enough. You need to take the initiative in being more active 
in communicating with the rest of the project.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org