Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
Hey Chitlesh,
i've not seen your spin in any parts of the process, yet. Could you please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Process?
I had already reserved a timeslot this weekend and the next one as well. :)
Hey Chitlesh,
your page still isn't in the right Category or review queue... Get it updated and reviewed by John Poelstra before the Feature Freeze, and notify the Spins SIG every step of the way so they can take FEL for a quick vote, before it's too late.
Summary: The page has to be updated and pass two (!) review queues before the Feature Freeze tomorrow (!).
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 06:38:15PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
Hey Chitlesh,
i've not seen your spin in any parts of the process, yet. Could you please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Process?
I had already reserved a timeslot this weekend and the next one as well. :)
Hey Chitlesh,
your page still isn't in the right Category or review queue... Get it updated and reviewed by John Poelstra before the Feature Freeze, and notify the Spins SIG every step of the way so they can take FEL for a quick vote, before it's too late.
Summary: The page has to be updated and pass two (!) review queues before the Feature Freeze tomorrow (!).
I see that Chitlesh has submitted his Spin for TM approval by the Board but it's still in [[Category:Spins_Ready_for_SIG]]. No problem per se -- I'm going to assume that the Spins SIG will report their approval to me or the FAB list by 1900 UTC tomorrow, in time for our meeting.
I'll make sure this is on the Board agenda for an approval vote at our IRC meeting tomorrow afternoon.
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 08:59:01PM -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 06:38:15PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip@kanarip.com wrote:
Hey Chitlesh,
i've not seen your spin in any parts of the process, yet. Could you please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Spins_Process?
I had already reserved a timeslot this weekend and the next one as well. :)
Hey Chitlesh,
your page still isn't in the right Category or review queue... Get it updated and reviewed by John Poelstra before the Feature Freeze, and notify the Spins SIG every step of the way so they can take FEL for a quick vote, before it's too late.
Summary: The page has to be updated and pass two (!) review queues before the Feature Freeze tomorrow (!).
I see that Chitlesh has submitted his Spin for TM approval by the Board but it's still in [[Category:Spins_Ready_for_SIG]]. No problem per se -- I'm going to assume that the Spins SIG will report their approval to me or the FAB list by 1900 UTC tomorrow, in time for our meeting.
I'll make sure this is on the Board agenda for an approval vote at our IRC meeting tomorrow afternoon.
Sorry to reply to myself -- but I realized that if there haven't been major changes to a Spin, it's unclear whether a new TM approval is needed from the Board. In the past, once Spins were approved, the Board typically didn't re-examine them every release. Obviously if there have been major changes introduced in a Spin since the prior approval, the Board should have the chance to revisit the approval. But in the absence of major changes, does the Spins SIG think this is necessary every release?
Paul W. Frields wrote: Obviously if
there have been major changes introduced in a Spin since the prior approval, the Board should have the chance to revisit the approval. But in the absence of major changes, does the Spins SIG think this is necessary every release?
Not necessary
Rahul
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Sorry to reply to myself -- but I realized that if there haven't been major changes to a Spin, it's unclear whether a new TM approval is needed from the Board. In the past, once Spins were approved, the Board typically didn't re-examine them every release. Obviously if there have been major changes introduced in a Spin since the prior approval, the Board should have the chance to revisit the approval. But in the absence of major changes, does the Spins SIG think this is necessary every release?
The Spins SIG doesn't want to overload the board and does not want to frustrate the process with an extra step unless it is required (like with a new Spin, or at the Board's request), or desirable (like with major changes).
What exactly entails a major change remains to be seen -so far I think we haven't had any other then the Education Math spin becoming a more general Education spin (again, not really major).
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 11:27:07PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
Sorry to reply to myself -- but I realized that if there haven't been major changes to a Spin, it's unclear whether a new TM approval is needed from the Board. In the past, once Spins were approved, the Board typically didn't re-examine them every release. Obviously if there have been major changes introduced in a Spin since the prior approval, the Board should have the chance to revisit the approval. But in the absence of major changes, does the Spins SIG think this is necessary every release?
The Spins SIG doesn't want to overload the board and does not want to frustrate the process with an extra step unless it is required (like with a new Spin, or at the Board's request), or desirable (like with major changes).
Great!
What exactly entails a major change remains to be seen -so far I think we haven't had any other then the Education Math spin becoming a more general Education spin (again, not really major).
I wrote a bit on this in a separate thread (sorry for the scattering -- there were already several going I think). I think the Spins SIG is fully capable of figuring out what is a major change and what is not. If any specific problems arise, I think it would be appropriate for the SIG to escalate as it would any other issue. What do you think?
Paul W. Frields wrote:
I wrote a bit on this in a separate thread (sorry for the scattering -- there were already several going I think). I think the Spins SIG is fully capable of figuring out what is a major change and what is not. If any specific problems arise, I think it would be appropriate for the SIG to escalate as it would any other issue. What do you think?
I think we are capable of recognizing major changes, and when there's doubt, there's nothing stopping us from asking the board (through f-a-b?) and getting a little guidance or feedback. This way, we would also not have to redirect the maintainer of a spin between the Spins SIG and the Board, either.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:56:46AM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
I wrote a bit on this in a separate thread (sorry for the scattering -- there were already several going I think). I think the Spins SIG is fully capable of figuring out what is a major change and what is not. If any specific problems arise, I think it would be appropriate for the SIG to escalate as it would any other issue. What do you think?
I think we are capable of recognizing major changes, and when there's doubt, there's nothing stopping us from asking the board (through f-a-b?) and getting a little guidance or feedback. This way, we would also not have to redirect the maintainer of a spin between the Spins SIG and the Board, either.
Beautiful -- if you can get that documented in the process page that would be wonderful.