Fwd: F13 Schedule Proposal--please RESPOND

[Bill Nottingham]

John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: 
> >John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said:
> >>I have had a Fedora 13 schedule drafted for several weeks based on the
> >>methodology we've established from previous releases.
> >>http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-13/f-13-key-tasks.html
> >
> >Just as a starting point, this schedule seems rather wrong; historically
> >the alpha/beta interim time is a month, roughly. You've scheduled
> 
> Your comment that everything is "rather wrong" is not appreciated or
> a helpful way to start this discussion.

Excuse me? I said the *schedule* seems rather wrong. I'm sorry if you
take offense to that, but it's not a personal judgement, and pulling it
out into some sort of statement about 'everything' seems a gross
overreaction.

If you'd prefer I just use words like 'bad', let me know.

> I'm not sure what period
> you believe should be a month.  Can you be more specific?

The alpha/beta interim time; i.e., the time between corresponding
alpha and beta milestones.

> >6 weeks. It appears you're just adding the amounts we slipped this
> >release into the schedule at the points where we slipped this release.
> 
> Incorrect assumptions.
> 
> >If I was tweaking what you've had posted, beta moves one week later
> >relative to the final date, and alpha moves two, if not three weeks later.
> 
> I'm following the methodology described here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle

If it's wrong, 'we should update the methodology'. You asked for feedback
on the schedule, not the methodology.

Was this methodology ever posted in a FESCo or rel-eng meeting for public
review by the stakeholders? I don't recall it, but I could be wrong. So,
it really shouldn't be surprising that other people are surprised by the
output of this new methodology, when that output doesn't actually appear
to match what we've previously done.

> >... how is 'work all done' something that's not already tracked?
> 
> I was suggesting milestones for the Desktop team and that "work all
> done" was unclear to the desktop team this release.  It sounded like
> they planned to keep pushing changes in right up until the day of
> RC.

'work all done' is the RC freeze. Not all work is equal, though; there's
UI changes that affect collateral, rebases of fringe leaf node packages,

Bill