Hi,
I have a couple of questions concerning xulrunner packaging:
1. How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on it)? 2. Is it targeted on F8 or not? 3. Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
Thanks, Martin
reference: [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList
Martin Sourada wrote:
Hi,
I have a couple of questions concerning xulrunner packaging:
- How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
it)? 2. Is it targeted on F8 or not? 3. Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
Thanks, Martin
reference: [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList
I think I noticed that more than one person had begun developing the packages, and hence you should be able to find it in bugzilla {review request}
DaveT.
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 16:34 +0200, David Timms wrote:
I think I noticed that more than one person had begun developing the packages, and hence you should be able to find it in bugzilla {review request}
DaveT.
Well, I've found one [1]. The package was accepted, however it's targeted on OLPC-2 branch, while I was asking about Fedora 8... Any info?
Thanks, Martin
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244374
Hi,
On 6/27/07, Martin Sourada martin.sourada@seznam.cz wrote:
Hi,
I have a couple of questions concerning xulrunner packaging:
- How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
it)? 2. Is it targeted on F8 or not?
AFAIK its targeted for OLPC-2 branch.
- Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OlpcFedoraPartnership
Thanks, Martin
reference: [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList
Regards, Parag.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
- How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
it)?
Good.
- Is it targeted on F8 or not?
Yes.
- Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
Shrug.
It would be better to write down the details in the wiki rather than shrugging it off. We would like to depend on it for the release notes for example rather than trying to parse change logs to get the important changes from thousands of packages as being done currently.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
- How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
it)?
Good.
- Is it targeted on F8 or not?
Yes.
- Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
Shrug.
It would be better to write down the details in the wiki rather than shrugging it off. We would like to depend on it for the release notes for example rather than trying to parse change logs to get the important changes from thousands of packages as being done currently.
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a requisite for work to get done... And for your information, I have been a contributor to the past 3 or so release notes adding the important changes that I have done to the notes. I don't blame you for failing to notice.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a requisite for work to get done...
This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
And for your information, I have been a
contributor to the past 3 or so release notes adding the important changes that I have done to the notes. I don't blame you for failing to notice.
Umm, I did notice since I watch wiki edits which is why I suggested it as a factor but there are other good reasons to use the wiki to describe any major features. It would be helpful to know clearly the feature list for Fedora 8 for Fedora ambassadors. IMO the effect of transparency alone makes it worth the effort.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a requisite for work to get done...
This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that I was about to send you a reply... :-)
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a requisite for work to get done...
This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that I was about to send you a reply... :-)
It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
Rahul
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a requisite for work to get done...
This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that I was about to send you a reply... :-)
It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a requisite for work to get done...
This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that I was about to send you a reply... :-)
It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
Feedback was asked right in this list. Check the archives.
Rahul
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:29 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a requisite for work to get done...
This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that I was about to send you a reply... :-)
It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
Feedback was asked right in this list. Check the archives.
I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a single reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to ratify this tomorrow ?!
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 12:58 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:29 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a > requisite for work to get done... This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that I was about to send you a reply... :-)
It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
Feedback was asked right in this list. Check the archives.
I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a single reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to ratify this tomorrow ?!
No.
josh
Matthias Clasen wrote:
I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a single reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to ratify this tomorrow ?!
John send the mail and the meeting agenda for FESCo has the item listed again which provides alteast two different opportunities for folks to provide any feedback necessary.
I send feedback via the wiki as asked in the earlier mail. Policies and guidelines are living documents and can (or will) be updated based on feedback if there is any even after they are ratified. Additional discussions can happen at any point of time. I was merely pointing out that feedback was indeed asked.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a single reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to ratify this tomorrow ?!
John send the mail and the meeting agenda for FESCo has the item listed again which provides alteast two different opportunities for folks to provide any feedback necessary.
I send feedback via the wiki as asked in the earlier mail. Policies and guidelines are living documents and can (or will) be updated based on feedback if there is any even after they are ratified. Additional discussions can happen at any point of time. I was merely pointing out that feedback was indeed asked.
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed? What is the point of voting then? Just let any old change through and fix it later.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that gets "voted" on.
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 13:25 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
I see that John asked for feedback 2 days ago, I don't see a single reponse to that - do you really think that is sufficient discussion to ratify this tomorrow ?!
John send the mail and the meeting agenda for FESCo has the item listed again which provides alteast two different opportunities for folks to provide any feedback necessary.
I send feedback via the wiki as asked in the earlier mail. Policies and guidelines are living documents and can (or will) be updated based on feedback if there is any even after they are ratified. Additional discussions can happen at any point of time. I was merely pointing out that feedback was indeed asked.
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed? What is the point of voting then? Just let any old change through and fix it later.
No.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that gets "voted" on.
Rahul isn't on FESCo. And I agree this needs more discussion before being ratified.
josh
Christopher Aillon wrote:
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are not written in stone.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that gets "voted" on.
That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are not written in stone.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that gets "voted" on.
That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm people into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you personally _expect_ it to be ratified.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are not written in stone.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that gets "voted" on.
That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm people into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you personally _expect_ it to be ratified.
I am not personally involved with it. The policy is mostly documenting the process that we have followed even in the previous release so I do expect maintainers to take an effort to describe what the plans are.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are not written in stone.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that gets "voted" on.
That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm people into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you personally _expect_ it to be ratified.
I am not personally involved with it. The policy is mostly documenting the process that we have followed even in the previous release so I do expect maintainers to take an effort to describe what the plans are.
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It won't be any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It will be done sooner rather than later. Probably by next week, although having to send my status updates on a tiny project like this isn't helping me get it done faster.
On 6/28/07, Christopher Aillon caillon@redhat.com wrote:
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It won't be any more newsworthy than any other firefox release.
Every firefox release is newsworthy, don't be so modest. How many applications do firefox security updates end up breaking through library dependencies? End-users definitely notice when a firefox updates go out.... its always big news.
More seriously, the above quoted text gets to the heart of the problem with a 'features' documentation policy. At the end of the day, the group of people who define something as feature-worthy are going to need to be the ones who keep the feature-level text updated. If a maintainer doesn't 'see' this as feature worthy then expecting the maintainer to keep that additional text updated will cause some friction.
Personally I disagree with you about xulrunner. Several application packages which currently depend on libraries inside firefox are going to be positively impacted by the inclusion of xulrunner. Enough of them to make xulrunner a big enough deal to make a little fuss over in the next fedora release from an end-user perspective.
-jef
On Thursday 28 June 2007 11:43:24 Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Personally I disagree with you about xulrunner. Several application packages which currently depend on libraries inside firefox are going to be positively impacted by the inclusion of xulrunner. Enough of them to make xulrunner a big enough deal to make a little fuss over in the next fedora release from an end-user perspective.
This is also another case where Fedora may be the first to "incur the pain" of reworking our software for Xulrunner, and identifying things that need to be change, potentially upstream. We need to be more proactive about touting these things where we break ground and other distros just follow us through. We often are the suckers who take all the pain and punishment, the other distros just follow us through and say "look at how much better ours is!"
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 11:43:24 Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Personally I disagree with you about xulrunner. Several application packages which currently depend on libraries inside firefox are going to be positively impacted by the inclusion of xulrunner. Enough of them to make xulrunner a big enough deal to make a little fuss over in the next fedora release from an end-user perspective.
This is also another case where Fedora may be the first to "incur the pain" of reworking our software for Xulrunner, and identifying things that need to be change, potentially upstream. We need to be more proactive about touting these things where we break ground and other distros just follow us through. We often are the suckers who take all the pain and punishment, the other distros just follow us through and say "look at how much better ours is!"
Actually, I think the other big ones have taken the lead here and gotten most of the work done. Pretty much all the apps that depend on it have gotten fixed upstream already, and all I expect is for packagers to switch from BuildRequires: gecko-devel = 1.8.0.13 to BuildRequires: gecko-devel = 1.9.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:47:44AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
This is also another case where Fedora may be the first to "incur the pain" of reworking our software for Xulrunner, and identifying things that need to be change, potentially upstream. We need to be more proactive about touting these things where we break ground and other distros just follow us through. We often are the suckers who take all the pain and punishment, the other distros just follow us through and say "look at how much better ours is!"
Maybe not this time. Xulrunner has bee in gentoo for a little while now and is getting more and more generalized. So hopefully the worst is already behind.
OG.
On Thursday 28 June 2007 12:56:02 Olivier Galibert wrote:
Maybe not this time. Xulrunner has bee in gentoo for a little while now and is getting more and more generalized. So hopefully the worst is already behind.
Granted, so while not this time, it /does/ happen, and it's good to be a bit more wordy about it.
Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:47:44AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
This is also another case where Fedora may be the first to "incur the pain" of reworking our software for Xulrunner, and identifying things that need to be change, potentially upstream. We need to be more proactive about touting these things where we break ground and other distros just follow us through. We often are the suckers who take all the pain and punishment, the other distros just follow us through and say "look at how much better ours is!"
Maybe not this time. Xulrunner has bee in gentoo for a little while now and is getting more and more generalized. So hopefully the worst is already behind.
Merely being in the repository does not really count. Does other apps like liferea built against it by default when you try to emerge them?
Rahul
On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:32:44PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Merely being in the repository does not really count. Does other apps like liferea built against it by default when you try to emerge them?
*checking*, hmmm, supported but not compiled with it by default. Damn. Too bad.
OG.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?
No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are not written in stone.
Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that gets "voted" on.
That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.
I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm people into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you personally _expect_ it to be ratified.
I am not personally involved with it. The policy is mostly documenting the process that we have followed even in the previous release so I do expect maintainers to take an effort to describe what the plans are.
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It won't be any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It will be done sooner rather than later. Probably by next week, although having to send my status updates on a tiny project like this isn't helping me get it done faster.
This goes to the heart of the problem. You don't consider the changes important but it is. Firefox related changes are BIG news. How many times were we asked when Firefox 2 was going to be in Fedora Core 6? I must have answered it atleast half a dozen times. So many that I had to write down a explanation on why and point users from several places to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox2.
I also remember seeing posts in this list including the one which started this discussion and other places asking about XULRunner. I myself have done in fedora-maintainers list before. XULRunner is going to affect about 50 applications in Fedora which uses Firefox for the browser engine. We are likely the first distribution to do so and hence would require explicit testing. I think that makes it a pretty major change.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It won't be any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It will be done sooner rather than later. Probably by next week, although having to send my status updates on a tiny project like this isn't helping me get it done faster.
This goes to the heart of the problem. You don't consider the changes important but it is. Firefox related changes are BIG news.
Please stop misinterpreting things. I never said it was not important. I am saying that it is not any more important than going from 2.0.0.0 to 2.0.0.4. It will require an equivalent amount of work: this is essentially just a version upgrade.
Almost all the upstreams I know that care about this have already been supporting XULrunner for well over a year now, and Novell has shipped an alpha version in their experimental branches, and Gentoo and I think Ubuntu has shipped it, and believe it or not, upstream has been rather good about helping projects work with XULRunner. It's finally in a state where I'm ready to say it will cause little damage and that is why it is going into Fedora now.
How many times were we asked when Firefox 2 was going to be in Fedora Core 6? I must have answered it atleast half a dozen times. So many that I had to write down a explanation on why and point users from several places to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox2.
And how many complaints have we had about metacity not doing enough to suit people's uber configuration needs? Or about someone not liking a theme or artwork? People will always find something to complain about but I'm glad that I was at least able to help fulfill your wiki page writing desires.
So fine. You win. Please put up a wiki page that says that XULRunner will be included in the next week or so. My real deadline is July 12, which is the day before I leave for GUADEC but I expect it sooner. That's really all I have to say about it right now and I'd rather spend time doing the work than writing up about it or wasting another second on this thread.
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It won't be any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It will be done sooner rather than later. Probably by next week, although having to send my status updates on a tiny project like this isn't helping me get it done faster.
This goes to the heart of the problem. You don't consider the changes important but it is. Firefox related changes are BIG news.
Please stop misinterpreting things. I never said it was not important. I am saying that it is not any more important than going from 2.0.0.0 to 2.0.0.4. It will require an equivalent amount of work: this is essentially just a version upgrade.
This is amply different from being merely a version upgrade. That should be evident by the amount of discussions within Fedora and in Mozilla.
People will always find something to complain about
but I'm glad that I was at least able to help fulfill your wiki page writing desires.
There will be always people critical of our work but that in many cases helps us understand the things we need to change. No thanks to you for demotivating sarcasm on efforts that were taken in part from helping you avoid answering repetitive questions but let me clarify that I have no inherent desires to write wiki pages.
So fine. You win. Please put up a wiki page that says that XULRunner will be included in the next week or so.
It was never about me winning. It was about having a planned and transparent feature list.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/XULRunner http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList
It happened to be "wiki pages" after all. I would appreciate if you can quickly verify and make any changes required to the feature page.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is not a big enough change to warrant that IMO though. It won't be any more newsworthy than any other firefox release. It will be done sooner rather than later. Probably by next week, although having to send my status updates on a tiny project like this isn't helping me get it done faster.
This goes to the heart of the problem. You don't consider the changes important but it is. Firefox related changes are BIG news.
Please stop misinterpreting things. I never said it was not important. I am saying that it is not any more important than going from 2.0.0.0 to 2.0.0.4. It will require an equivalent amount of work: this is essentially just a version upgrade.
This is amply different from being merely a version upgrade. That should be evident by the amount of discussions within Fedora and in Mozilla.
People will always find something to complain about
but I'm glad that I was at least able to help fulfill your wiki page writing desires.
There will be always people critical of our work but that in many cases helps us understand the things we need to change. No thanks to you for demotivating sarcasm on efforts that were taken in part from helping you avoid answering repetitive questions but let me clarify that I have no inherent desires to write wiki pages.
So fine. You win. Please put up a wiki page that says that XULRunner will be included in the next week or so.
It was never about me winning. It was about having a planned and transparent feature list.
This has been renamed to FeatureXULRunner for consistency.
Rahul
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 12:48 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 22:24 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
I was not aware that in writing things down on the wiki was a requisite for work to get done...
This is sort of a anticipated response but writing things down on the wiki *is part* of getting the work done. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JohnPoelstra/FeaturePolicyDraft
Thankfully, that's still a draft, or I'd have to edit the wiki page that I was about to send you a reply... :-)
It is waiting on FESCo ratification on the meeting tomorrow.
It doesn't make much sense to ratify such policies without asking for feedback from the people who are subject to it first, if you ask me.
I believe John did send this proposal to the lists for feedback.
/B
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 21:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
- How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
it)?
Good.
- Is it targeted on F8 or not?
Yes.
- Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
Shrug.
It would be better to write down the details in the wiki rather than shrugging it off. We would like to depend on it for the release notes for example rather than trying to parse change logs to get the important changes from thousands of packages as being done currently.
If you've got time to chide the maintainer about it, you've got time to help the maintainer and write down the details in the wiki yourself.
Just a thought.
-w
Will Woods wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 21:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:
Martin Sourada wrote:
- How's the work on xulrunner going (if there is someone who works on
it)?
Good.
- Is it targeted on F8 or not?
Yes.
- Why is it not mentioned on wiki[1]?
Shrug.
It would be better to write down the details in the wiki rather than shrugging it off. We would like to depend on it for the release notes for example rather than trying to parse change logs to get the important changes from thousands of packages as being done currently.
If you've got time to chide the maintainer about it, you've got time to help the maintainer and write down the details in the wiki yourself.
Just a thought.
How am I supposed to guess what the plans are? If maintainers don't tell anyone else there is no chance for anyone else to participate or give feedback.
Rahul