On 18 June 2014 15:23, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 20:01 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 17 June 2014 18:35, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 17:48 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > > On 17 June 2014 16:02, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've revised the release criteria draft again, with reference to the
> > > > useful discussions both on-list and at this morning's meeting:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_server_release_criteria
> > > >
> > > > I added the firewall exception for the Cockpit web interface, clarified
> > > > the issue about role deployment "at install time", and added new
> > > > criteria for the cockpit management interface to be running OOTB and
> > for
> > > > roles to meet their "functional requirements, as defined in their role
> > > > specification documents" - role specification documents being something
> > > > I invented out of my ass at the meeting this morning. View that one as
> > a
> > > > trial balloon. :)
> > > >
> > > > As always, thoughts / comments welcome!
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK. First of all, where could I 'test' any of these things on a Fedora 20
> > > system.
> >
> > Well, that would be pointless. We're building a new product, called
> > Fedora Server. That's kind of the whole point. We already have release
> > criteria that are more or less scope-appropriate for the product called
> > "Fedora 20" - they're the Fedora 20 Release Criteria, which we used to
> > validate the Fedora 20 release.
> >
> >
> That is not what I meant. I am sorry I am not communicating well and not
> being helpful here. I have seen the links and such but they are in the
> words on a white board. There are ~60 days before the alpha+2 weeks and I
> wanted to see what code was written and possibly set it up against Fed 20
> (as Fedora 21/Rawhide may not be the best to test against as its changing)
> so I could see if the draft looked spot on or if it was too little or too
> much. That was all.
>
> Again my apologies

Sorry for sounding harsh, I was just a bit frustrated. So, let me try
again: if you have concerns about our ability to implement the Server
tech specs within the current F21 timeframe, well, that's a thing. The
Server WG actually has similar concerns, which is why it asked FESCo for
a schedule modification recently, but that's not exactly how it came
out.


My concerns in relationship to your document was if 

Role deployment
Role service query
Role firewall configuration
Role functional requirements

were overly or underly ambitious for what could be met. I did not communicate that well and I can understand the frustration as negative nancies steal the life out of everything. 
 

--
Stephen J Smoogen.