On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 02:18 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Kevin, could you *please* not word things like that? There's
> need for it.
> I already wrote this to -test a couple of days ago:
> and we're discussing it there. I think the thread demonstrates things
> tend to go much more constructively if you avoid throwing words like
> 'blatant' and 'failure' and 'needlessly' around.
Did we not fail our users? Was there a real need to fail them? (As a
non-native speaker, I won't judge the relative merits of "blatant" vs.
I didn't say that what Kevin said was *wrong*, I said it wasn't the best
way to word it.
> We designed a policy,
> put it into effect, now we're observing how well it works and we can
> modify its implementation on the fly. It doesn't need to be done in an
> adversarial spirit.
Given that _this exact scenario_ was repeatedly brought up since the
very start of the update acceptance criteria proposals, I think some
frustration is quite justified. This situation is not really a
surprise, and Fedora did not have to unnecessarily expose users to a
vulnerability in order to relearn this lesson.
On the other hand, other scenarios were also brought up, which have not
come to pass - for instance, the same thing happening to Fedora 13 or
Fedora 14. If we had simply accepted the predictions of doom and not
implemented the policy at all, we would be without its benefits for the
development of F13 and F14.
In addition to being constructive about remedying the situation,
shouldn't we try to be more constructive about _not introducing such
situations_ in the first place?
Saying 'oh dear, this might not work, we'd better not try' is rarely a
good approach, IMHO. It's better to try things, with the proviso that
you accept when they aren't working and withdraw or modify them.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org