[Fedora-packaging] Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

[Jon Ciesla]

On 05/10/2010 05:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:14:33PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>    
>> On 05/10/2010 01:46 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>      
>>> Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said:
>>>        
>>>> If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
>>>> this meeting, please feel free to let us know.
>>>>          
>>> I'd like FPC to decide and clearly state their Official(tm) opinion on
>>> FESCo review of approved guidelines; it came up again in the thread-of-doom,
>>> with claims both that FPC-as-a-whole wanted FESCo to review, and that they
>>> *didn't* want FESCo review.
>>>        
>> Well, I want FESCo review. If the FPC disagrees with me and wants to
>> vote on it, I'd be happy to let them. I think the fact that things have
>> passed FPC, only to be reviewed by FESCo and found wanting (which then
>> went back to FPC for revision and eventual acceptance) means that the
>> procedure works, even if it is rare that FESCo find anything at issue
>> with the FPC proposals.
>>
>>      
> I'd like FESCo to have the right of appeal but not necessarily review.
> If I just link to my previous writeup, will other FPC members be good enough
> to read it?
>    https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/358#comment:8
>
>    
Good food for thought, I will certainly mull this over the next 27 hours.

One thing this highlighted for me, and maybe it's something I missed, 
being the FPC NKOTB, but it never occurred to me that FPC members could 
attend FESCO meetings.  I see the notifications, I just never put 2 and 
2 together. <facepalm>

In any event, thanks for writing this up, it gives us a good place to 
debate from and, I hope, will lead to a more efficient process without 
sacrificing quality.

-J
> Basically, I think the current way that ratification by fesco works in
> practice delays guidelines getting put into effect and getting written up
> with little benefit.
>
> The actual times when FESCo points out problems are largely when the issue
> gets discussed on the mailing lists between the FPC meeting and the FESCo
> meeting.  This could just as easly tie into the process where FESCo
> represents the packagers to the FPC to get a change in an established
> guideline as opposed to having a separate step where the guidelines must be
> explicitly ratified by FESCo.  In our present process, fesco is supposedly
> reviewing the Guidelines between the time that the FPC passes them and the
> FESCo meeting but it's apparent that this seldom happens in practice.
>
> As noted in that ticket, it would make it easier to get FPC guidelines
> written up as the accountability for writing up passed guidelines could be
> handed out directly following the meeting rather than getting lost in the
> shuffle between FPC meeting - FESCo meeting - FPC meeting.
>
> The real benefit is probably to FESCo, though, as it clears out ten to
> fifteen minutes that they would no longer need to spend on it in meeting and
> however long the members actually do spend on reviewing the guidelines
> outside of the meeting as the current method of review is assuming they do.
>
> So if it's brought to a vote in FPC, I'll vote that FESCo stop explicitly
> having a review step and moves to just pushing things they notice as
> problems back to FPC.  But I won't mind overly much if it doesn't win out
> there -- I'd be more concerned about it if I were on FESCo and had to try to
> add reviewing of the guidelines to the other things on the FESCo agenda.
>
> -Toshio
>    
>
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20100511/54a12662/attachment.html