Summary & minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-03-19)

Robyn Bergeron rbergero at
Tue Mar 20 02:01:47 UTC 2012

On 03/19/2012 06:38 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Josh Boyer<jwboyer at>  wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Jon Ciesla<limburgher at>  wrote:
>>> * #830 F18 Feature: ARM as Primary Arch --
>>>  (limburgher,
>>>   18:44:13)
>>>   * LINK:
>>>     (nirik, 18:45:42)
>>>   * AGREED: ask qa, rel-eng, kernel and infra teams to provide feedback
>>>     on the proposal. Ask fesco members to come up with critera that they
>>>     would want to add and revisit next week.  (+8,-:0,0:0)  (limburgher,
>>>     19:09:50)
>> It's fairly disappointing this was discussed during this meeting without
>> being on the agenda that was sent out.  This is a rather large item that
>> needs a lot of discussion among the various groups in Fedora, and I'm sure
>> that I'm not the only person that wasn't aware it was even going to be in
>> the meeting today.  (Even ignoring the fact that the agenda was sent without
>> a proper Subject and easily skipped.)
>> It's plain irritating that per the logs, the proposers of this thought it
>> was just going to be covered in the 'Open Floor' section.  Seriously, this
>> is not the way to start off on a great foot for such a major proposal.
> Agreed, my apologies.  I'm still getting the hang of chairing meetings
> and only saw the ARM feature after I sent the agenda.  I added it to
> the meeting thinking additional discussion would be helpful, not
> necessarily that it needed a definitive vote.  I'll certainly be more
> careful all around next time.
My apologies on this as well (EVERYWHERE TONIGHT) - this feature went my 
way late Friday, I went back and forth with feature owners a bit over 
the weekend, and added the ticket as "open floor (for today) or meeting 
(next week)" figuring that there was not going to be a definitive vote, 
but that there was likely going to be numerous rounds of questions, and 
leaving it to the discretion of FESCo to decide if they wanted to even 
address it today vs. just acknowledge that "THIS IS COMING." Perhaps I 
could have made that clearer in the ticket, or more inherently known 
that "we cannot possibly look at a ticket without immediately having one 
million questions," but I don't think this should be put on the feature 
owners themselves as a bad way to start off; they were just looking to 
start the discussion as way-before-F18 as possible. Throw the blame my 
way, and I am pretty sure that the team of folks working on this are 
well aware that this is not going to be a cut-and-dry decision, and 
understand that it will likely take a while to get through the 
discussion of the feature with all involved parties.  They made 
themselves quite available today, and I don't doubt that they will be 
doing the same in future meetings should this continue to go forward.

> -J
>> josh
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at

More information about the devel mailing list