Bug 0 review pls

[Matt Darcy]

Dustin Kirkland wrote:
>
>   
>> As it happens there's a new set of opportunties and we aren't limited to
>> just aping wherever Microsoft has gone... but refusing to acknowledge
>> clear failings does not bode well for the bold new wave.
>>     
>
> True--tons of new opportunities.  Personally, I'm more interested in
> new frontiers than replacing Microsoft infrastructure as such Active
> Directory and Exchange servers.  I think it would be great if Ubuntu
> were the default choice for Web 2.0 servers, such as wiki's, gobby's,
> pastebin's, streaming media, etc.
>
>   
>> As to numbers... I think even if this is Bug #7346492, if people take
>> the content seriously it's going to be turning up in the mainstream
>> press and maybe even in Microsoft PR.
>>     
>
> 2^2,079,460,347 perhaps? ... Strangely, this is also the telephone
> number of an Islington flat where Arthur Dent went to a fancy dress
> party, and met a very nice young woman whom he totally blew it with.
> ;-)
>
>   
>> [chopped advice on going through the lp process. I'll study it and
>> probably just follow it as given. So far I have worked out that
>> Blueprint == MRD in enterprise speak.]
>>     
>
> Right, "Blueprints" are equivalent to "Line Items" in IBM-speak.  It's
> a loose suggestion of work that could be done.  Note that the
> "Drafter", "Assignee", and "Approver" can all be different people.
> You can write a blueprint, approved by someone, and implemented by a
> third person (or team).  Perhaps someone from Canonical will work on
> the item, or perhaps you or someone else in the community will run
> with it.
>
>   
>> I get the feeling that if people just create content in launchpad it
>> gets ignored unless there was buyin in the first place... is that fair?
>>     
>
> True.  It sounds like the UDS->Blueprint->Spec process has been
> changed recently.  Based on the sessions, discussions, and lessons
> learned at UDS Prague, we're rapidly writing Blueprints and Specs for
> the functionality we'd like to see make it into Intrepid.
>
> See the Intrepid schedule, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IntrepidReleaseSchedule
>
> Specification (Blueprints) are due by June 5th (that's Thursday).  The
> powers that be will go through the submitted Blueprints and explicitly
> bless some of them for Intrepid.
>
>   
>> Can you point me to anything online about these discussions, or should I
>> start blueprinting?
>>     
> ...
>   
>> I'll need some help working through the process. Thanks for your advice.
>>     
>
> If I understand the process correctly, Blueprinting (and the
> corresponding Specs) should represent the results of discussions and
> sessions at UDS.  At least that's the intention.  I'd say you can
> start Blueprinting anything we discussed at UDS and you felt like you
> got some support behind.  Understand that not ever Blueprint can be
> "approved" for the current release.  Keep in touch with people in
> #ubuntu-server and #ubuntu-devel to make sure you're on the right
> track and not spinning your wheels.
>
> :-Dustin
>
>   
It does seem that while a bug report may have spured this discussion ( a 
good one may I add ) it would be a better idea to try to split the 
points made here into seperate discussion/projects/blueprints. Launchpad 
has the ability to create sub projects so I'd like to see at least some 
of these issues put in a place where people can contribute and bring 
them forward, there are certainly dicussion points on this thread that 
have been in my head for a while as well as pointing focus at 
alternatives and additional sub issues.

Matt.