Summary/Minutes for Wednesday's FESCo meeting (2012-12-05)

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 10:28 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Dne 6.12.2012 21:40, Josh Boyer napsal(a):
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller
> > > <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > >>> As I said in the meeting yesterday, I think the definition of a
> > >>> Feature
> > >>> needs to be cleared up before we can really tackle this one.
> > >>>  Feature to
> > >>> me is something important enough that it shouldn't be
> > >>> auto-accepted.  If
> > >>> there is some other class of thing people submit that isn't a
> > >>> Feature,
> > >>> then I might be for auto-accepting of those.
> > >> Alternately, "Feature" could be the term for the any small or
> > >> big thing
> > >> which is useful to track and tout for marketing purposes, and
> > >> big technical
> > >> changes could be, I dunno... "Major Changes".
> > > The meeting minutes showed that Fedora Marketing is already
> > > filtering
> > > the current Feature list and picking the important ones to
> > > highlight, so
> > > I don't think continuing to call the small ones Features is
> > > accurate.
> > >
> > > I mean, sure it could be done but it seems to make more sense to
> > > change
> > > the name of the small ones instead.  Or just have them go to
> > > release
> > > notes.  The main point is, calling them all the same thing is
> > > confusing
> > > and leads to a basically useless "Feature list".
> > >
> > > josh
> > 
> > Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create
> > feature page for it. Period.
> > 
> > I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and impact,
> > when
> > it will be autocategorized by feedback on ML. The only think
> > matters is
> > that the Feature is widely advertised and that the community can
> > provide
> > early feedback. Please avoid bureaucracy. I would realy hate to see
> > something like FFCo (Fedora Feature Committee), which would decided
> > if
> > feature is feature, major change, alteration, evolution or
> > disruption,
> > since it really doesn't matter.
> 
> Maybe we can persuade Josh if we do s/Feature/A change that is worth
> announcing and potentially also tracking or advertising/.

Yep, as the main idea is to collect as much ideas/changes to be 
publicly announced and if we say only part of these are Features
AFTER discussion/review - I'm ok with that.

As it's the goal - to know about changes people do not consider
features but definitely could be raised to the feature status.

The common example I see as a wrangler - hey, I'm not sure this
functionality is worth creating feature, and you know, the process,
and nobody would care... But once the feature is accepted - wow,
I got so much response, from all people from different projects
that touch the area and we're now working on integration etc. ->
*VISIBILITY*.

Do not call it "Feature Process" but "Planning process" - as it
fits the decision to create F19 schedule after we know the scope
of it based on proposals. And then - I'm ok with even more terms -
Feature for something we really want to feature and make Marketing's
life easier - so not based on scope, but marketing and define
more "boxes"... 

Jaroslav

> --
> Tomas Mraz
> No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
>                                               Turkish proverb
> 
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel