motu-release

[Sarah Hobbs]

I've got more thoughts on all this, but can't document them tonight. 
However:

Cesare Tirabassi wrote:
> So, I'd propose a +2 in a (insert a reasonable amount of time here, 2 days 
> since the date a _valid_ request was filed seems reasonable to me) ? The 
> obvious drawback is that no FFe can be approved before the 2 days elapse, in 
> my view a reasonable price to pay.

We can do better than this - why not use your proposal, or if it has a 
+3 vote, it can go through immediately?  2 or 3 days sounds a pretty 
sane time to me.  That gives us the advantages of both situations.

> An alternative would be to have a veto system, in which any member can stop 
> the regular process by simply objecting (obviously with reasonable arguments) 
> against the FFe. In this case the FFe will not be approved until the required 
> majority is obtained.

I hesitate over this - having worked with the KDE side for a while, i'm 
aware that some of the non-KDE-ers would veto changes based on size, but 
not understand the way KDE works, in terms of upstream testing, etc, and 
would veto, on principle.  Yet others, who do understand the testing 
procedure, etc, that has gone on, and think it's fine.  If I recall 
correctly, we certainly had some kde4 universe packages where this was 
the case, too.

I'd hate to see a 'valid' FFe be declined, because someone didn't 
understand the upstream procedures (which is likely, based on how many 
there are), and made a judgment not taking all the relevant factors into 
account, as they didn't know about them.

Note that I'm not saying that they should all know everything - because 
I'm not - just that we need to make sure that their incorrect decision 
shouldn't act as a sledgehammer.

> 
> I'd also discourage the practice of accepting an FFe on the base of a short 
> IRC chat without apparently any research on the implications and background 
> of the request.
> We have an FFe process so lets make the best use of it (accepting an FFe 
> because your buddy is asking you to do it on IRC, or because somebody you 
> trust is telling you that it will be good to have that package, are not, in 
> my humble view, good reasons to accept an FFe).
> 
> Finally, I always found a nonsense that we have a rather strict system until 
> few days before release and then exactly when we should really tighten the 
> tap, we relax all requirements (its enough to have one IRC approval without 
> sometime even filing a request).

I'll comment on this later.

Hobbsee


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20080630/f81a17a2/attachment.pgp