critera proposal/discussion: FESCo blockers

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
> On 2013-06-21 10:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:37:01 -0700
> > Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> So, just a phrasing thing, the criteria are mostly written in the form
> >> 'XXX must be the case', not 'XXX is added to the blocker list'. So
> >> perhaps:
> >> 
> >> 'All bugs deemed by FESCo to block the milestone release must be
> >> fixed.'
> >> 
> >> Would be enough. My suggestion used the terms 'issues' and 'addressed'
> >> as weasel words we've found useful before - in the case where we work
> >> around a bug, rather than fixing it, we can call that 'addressing' it
> >> - but I don't really mind writing it that way and just using Common
> >> Sense (tm). I think specifying FESCo's current decision-making
> >> mechanism - majority vote - in the criterion is a mistake, as it's at
> >> least theoretically plausible that FESCo could change its
> >> decision-making mechanism in future, and then the criterion would
> >> need to be updated for no good reason. All that matters to the
> >> blocker process is that 'FESCo Hath Deemed It Thus'. The mechanism by
> >> which FESCo Deems things is out of scope.
> > 
> > Sure. Works for me.
> 
> As there were no objections, I'm adding this to the Alpha page as I
> create the F20 criteria pages. Thanks!

Late +1! It's good to have it documented and part of blocker process to
avoid surprises.

R.

> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> --
> test mailing list
> test at lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test