On 05/10/2010 05:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:14:33PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
  
On 05/10/2010 01:46 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
    
Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said: 
      
If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
this meeting, please feel free to let us know.
        
I'd like FPC to decide and clearly state their Official(tm) opinion on
FESCo review of approved guidelines; it came up again in the thread-of-doom,
with claims both that FPC-as-a-whole wanted FESCo to review, and that they
*didn't* want FESCo review.
      
Well, I want FESCo review. If the FPC disagrees with me and wants to
vote on it, I'd be happy to let them. I think the fact that things have
passed FPC, only to be reviewed by FESCo and found wanting (which then
went back to FPC for revision and eventual acceptance) means that the
procedure works, even if it is rare that FESCo find anything at issue
with the FPC proposals.

    
I'd like FESCo to have the right of appeal but not necessarily review.
If I just link to my previous writeup, will other FPC members be good enough
to read it?
  https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/358#comment:8

  
Good food for thought, I will certainly mull this over the next 27 hours. 

One thing this highlighted for me, and maybe it's something I missed, being the FPC NKOTB, but it never occurred to me that FPC members could attend FESCO meetings.  I see the notifications, I just never put 2 and 2 together. <facepalm>

In any event, thanks for writing this up, it gives us a good place to debate from and, I hope, will lead to a more efficient process without sacrificing quality.

-J
Basically, I think the current way that ratification by fesco works in
practice delays guidelines getting put into effect and getting written up
with little benefit.

The actual times when FESCo points out problems are largely when the issue
gets discussed on the mailing lists between the FPC meeting and the FESCo
meeting.  This could just as easly tie into the process where FESCo
represents the packagers to the FPC to get a change in an established
guideline as opposed to having a separate step where the guidelines must be
explicitly ratified by FESCo.  In our present process, fesco is supposedly
reviewing the Guidelines between the time that the FPC passes them and the
FESCo meeting but it's apparent that this seldom happens in practice.

As noted in that ticket, it would make it easier to get FPC guidelines
written up as the accountability for writing up passed guidelines could be
handed out directly following the meeting rather than getting lost in the
shuffle between FPC meeting - FESCo meeting - FPC meeting.

The real benefit is probably to FESCo, though, as it clears out ten to
fifteen minutes that they would no longer need to spend on it in meeting and
however long the members actually do spend on reviewing the guidelines
outside of the meeting as the current method of review is assuming they do.

So if it's brought to a vote in FPC, I'll vote that FESCo stop explicitly
having a review step and moves to just pushing things they notice as
problems back to FPC.  But I won't mind overly much if it doesn't win out
there -- I'd be more concerned about it if I were on FESCo and had to try to
add reviewing of the guidelines to the other things on the FESCo agenda.

-Toshio
  
-- packaging mailing list packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging