----- Original Message -----
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 10:28 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 6.12.2012 21:40, Josh Boyer napsal(a):
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller
> > <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:20:22AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >>> As I said in the meeting yesterday, I think the definition of a
> >>> Feature
> >>> needs to be cleared up before we can really tackle this one.
> >>> Feature to
> >>> me is something important enough that it shouldn't be
> >>> auto-accepted. If
> >>> there is some other class of thing people submit that isn't a
> >>> Feature,
> >>> then I might be for auto-accepting of those.
> >> Alternately, "Feature" could be the term for the any small or
> >> big thing
> >> which is useful to track and tout for marketing purposes, and
> >> big technical
> >> changes could be, I dunno... "Major Changes".
> > The meeting minutes showed that Fedora Marketing is already
> > filtering
> > the current Feature list and picking the important ones to
> > highlight, so
> > I don't think continuing to call the small ones Features is
> > accurate.
> >
> > I mean, sure it could be done but it seems to make more sense to
> > change
> > the name of the small ones instead. Or just have them go to
> > release
> > notes. The main point is, calling them all the same thing is
> > confusing
> > and leads to a basically useless "Feature list".
> >
> > josh
>
> Feature is something somebody considers important enough to create
> feature page for it. Period.
>
> I am not sure why do you want to categorize it by size and impact,
> when
> it will be autocategorized by feedback on ML. The only think
> matters is
> that the Feature is widely advertised and that the community can
> provide
> early feedback. Please avoid bureaucracy. I would realy hate to see
> something like FFCo (Fedora Feature Committee), which would decided
> if
> feature is feature, major change, alteration, evolution or
> disruption,
> since it really doesn't matter.
Maybe we can persuade Josh if we do s/Feature/A change that is worth
announcing and potentially also tracking or advertising/.
Yep, as the main idea is to collect as much ideas/changes to be
publicly announced and if we say only part of these are Features
AFTER discussion/review - I'm ok with that.
As it's the goal - to know about changes people do not consider
features but definitely could be raised to the feature status.
The common example I see as a wrangler - hey, I'm not sure this
functionality is worth creating feature, and you know, the process,
and nobody would care... But once the feature is accepted - wow,
I got so much response, from all people from different projects
that touch the area and we're now working on integration etc. ->
*VISIBILITY*.
Do not call it "Feature Process" but "Planning process" - as it
fits the decision to create F19 schedule after we know the scope
of it based on proposals. And then - I'm ok with even more terms -
Feature for something we really want to feature and make Marketing's
life easier - so not based on scope, but marketing and define
more "boxes"...
Jaroslav
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel