[Fedora-spins] MIA spins
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Thu May 27 13:04:25 UTC 2010
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:44:50AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 05/27/2010 12:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:37:48 +0100,
> >> Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> WooHoo... nearly 2 days after the release and there's still no signs
> >>> of the Moblin spin. I'm not going to yell and scream like some would
> >>> about their spin but it would be nice to see some kind of update as to
> >>> why its still missing? I don't see that request as being unreasonable
> >>> after all I feel I put as much work into my spin and it can't help to
> >>> feel to me a little unfair and disappointed. If it was some other spin
> >>> all hell would have broken lose.
> >> I think that would depend on which spin. This isn't the first time something
> >> bad has happened with a spin. I don't remember hell breaking loose in the
> >> past.
> >> Certainly it is unfortunate and disappointing that it happened.
> > I have long since advocated that spin owners be granted access in Fedora
> > infrastructure to compose their own spins and release engineering not
> > take this role. The current method is simply not scaling well and we
> > have seen enough proof of that by now.
> I'm not sure the pros and cons to the above, or whether there's
> something as basic as access to signing keys that might restrict that.
> I'm quite happy for the infra team to deal with it, generally they've
> done a sterling job and I hope to see Moblin spin shortly, pity its
> well behind the watershed and the MeeGo 1 release will no doubt dampen
> down the effect but that is life.
> What I would like is a much better defined spin process. I've been
> involved in the spin process for 2 releases now, managed to miss the
> boat with F-12 because there was no where on the spin process and no
> prior announcements to cut off dates. I actually made it in with 2
> spins this process (maintain moblin, co-maintain sugar on a stick) but
> it was certainly not without issues.
I agree that the spin process and ownership is in an unclear state. I
asked two questions in my original message that are unanswered, and I
think Spins SIG members must answer to improve the situation:
(1) Who is responsible for gathering schedule and report the changes
needed -- actionable tasks, who does them, and the start and end
(2) What are the unclear areas of the process, and what are the
suggestions for fixing them? (Note I already cleared up one area, but
surely there are others as Peter notes.)
A "fire and forget" approach once Spins are accepted doesn't encourage
the health and smooth operation of a SIG. It's important for all the
SIG members to help their fellows and the group by participating in a
review of the process and making it easier to follow.
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
More information about the spins