On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:04 PM Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > > What I'm looking at is the commit logs. That's all that ultimately > > > matters. But see above revisions, of course. > > > > > > > I think that's a very narrow view of the world to base your assertions on > > commit logs only, I don't see the value in it. If your end argument here > is > > that CPE do not spend enough time working on Fedora things then you are > > very mistaken. Almost 80% of our team capacity is on Fedora and our > > upcoming Q2 initiatives this is the same. > > Just to make sure this is really clear, no, that's not my intent at > all. I was only following up on the question of whether the amount of > resources available for what was previously referred to as "Fedora > infra" (as opposed, for instance, to "Fedora release engineering") had > increased, decreased or stayed the same (with "stayed the same" seeming > to be the ultimate conclusion). By including or excluding anyone from > the lists I absolutely did not mean to imply anything about the value > of their contributions, or whether those contributions were to "Fedora" > in a larger sense - I was only trying to keep it a like-for-like > comparison. It's obvious from your and Clement's emails that this idea > got lost somewhere as we got into the weeds of commit logs and the > like, so I apologize for that, particularly as it turns out my initial > impression that the resources available had declined was incorrect. I > probably work closer with the releng folks than anyone and I certainly > value their work highly! > I accept that apology and I'm glad I could straight out the state of CPE for others to see, so it was a positive contribution to the discussion. > > The initial suggestion I made that triggered this subthread was not > "perhaps CPE isn't spending enough time on Fedora" (I certainly don't > believe that or intend to suggest it) but "perhaps Red Hat is not > providing enough resources to CPE and other teams in order for Fedora > to be run the way the Fedora community believes it should be run". As I > said to Clement, I think the suggestion still bears consideration, > given that Clement says the workload has increased appreciably. > +1 I'd make that representation to Fedora Council who in turn can take it to the right folks in Red Hat. > > > > > Can you help me understand what the mystery is about? We took in 300+ > > > > requirements that we distilled down into the generic list that we > came > > > > up > > > > with, many of which are buckets / Epics. Every single requirement was > > > > analysed. I have said this multiple times but please, if this is > still > > > > a > > > > mystery to you, let me know how I can help clarify it. > > > > > > The specific gap I am talking about is the gap between this list > > > submitted by Ben Cotton on behalf of Fedora: > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-disc...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/OEPDGVKYAJIQ6YYZU5J3XT3LHXFROFI5/ > > > > The thread you reference is not the list that was submitted. The first > post > > on that is not the final list, the final list was a result of the debates > > and discussions that occurred on that thread and was submitted directly > to > > CPE. To be clear, we did not pull our Fedora requirements from that list > > you are referencing. > > Well, that's interesting. I got that link from earlier in this thread, > where Julen asked if that was the list you meant: > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/O4GHD2AH2E55JE45H6NUJ46JEDZAKBWY/ > > and you said "yes": > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/F4HMYWOCACQAJY57G3ZNXMC7PSBRQPZ3/ > > so, I'm only going on what you told us. If it is *not* in fact the > final list, where *is* that final list? > It's in a Google Doc I received, I don't know where the public version is but I think it's only the requirements that were debated that changed. > > There is a substantial comment from Matt in which he downplays the > self-hosting requirement: > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-disc...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/E5R55AS3Z7QLGRXAT6RGQKJNVXLTAJHJ/ > > and kind of prevaricates a lot on the F/OSS requirement, first > saying that he wants to emphasize it and then kind of saying the > opposite for three paragraphs. So I can see where that might have > caused some confusion. But without seeing this "final list" that you're > now saying exists, it's hard to be sure. > > > > > > > and the 'summarized' list you have pointed to here: > > > > > > https://hackmd.io/@My419-DISUGgo4gcmO1D6A/HJB74lcL8 > > > > > > Now, right off the bat, we have a huge problem. The "summarized" list > > > claims this: > > > > > > "after duplications and similar in theme requirements were merged > > > together, we were left with the following unique User Story list:" > > > > > > you've also phrased the same thing slightly differently on the mailing > > > list: > > > > > > "As a team we evaluated every single requirement (over 300 of them) and > > > the presentation in the combined User Story list is an amalgamation of > > > like for like User Stories to capture at a high level the spirit of the > > > requests." > > > However, the top three points on the Fedora list relate to F/OSS and > > > self-hosting principles. These points are entirely missing from the > > > "summarized" list. > > > > They were never formal requirements as submitted by Ben. I'm assuming you > > did not read Matthews reply > > < > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-disc...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/E5R55AS3Z7QLGRXAT6RGQKJNVXLTAJHJ/ > > > > on the thread you linked which descoped om prem and OSS as a standard, > > which I am assuming Ben used as his basis to remove them from the > formally > > submitted list. > > You're right, I didn't, but this was because earlier in the thread you > said that the list mentioned above *was* the Fedora list. I can only go > on what I'm told, after all. > It's possible I misspoke on it, that list was the wrap up requirements that Ben took and shared for the 2nd phase of discussion. I'm after replying to 50+ mails on this topic so it's possible I misinterpreted the comment, I hope my subsequent comments clears it up. > Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list, > then? If this is supposed to be an open process? > @Ben Cotton <bcot...@redhat.com> can oblige here, it's not my place to share it without a stakeholder approval. > > As I wrote I find Matthew's comment ambiguous, but I would suggest that > reading it as "descoping...OSS" is arguably going too far. It does, > after all, start out by saying "In contrast, I strongly urge the CPE > decision-makers to take this into strong consideration". That seems > kind of the opposite to "descoping" it, to me. Descope in the sense it never made it into the requirement list. We didn't base our analysis on comments in a mailing thread. > As a Fedora contributor > I would be surprised if the original list plus Matthew's comment with > no further discussion led to the utter removal of F/OSS as a > requirement on Fedora's part from the final submitted list. That would > seem like a mistake. Of course, it wouldn't be CPE's mistake. > > > > I will also make a side note: it was claimed earlier in this thread > that > > > the "mobile app" requirement "came from Fedora", but there is a rather > > > interesting discrepancy there. The Fedora requirement reads: > > > > > > "As a Fedora contributor, I can perform issue and pull request actions > > > on mobile devices via a native mobile app or a mobile-friendly webapp > so > > > that I can contribute while away from my desk." > > > > > > The "summarized" version reads: > > > > > > "As a General User > > > I want a mobile native app > > > To allow me contribute while away from my desk" > > > > > > > I don't really find that an interesting discrepancy that we choose the > > generic wording for a mobile app requirement. If you like, I can update > the > > wording to be verbatim, it doesn't change the actual ask of the > requirement > > which is mobility use cases, which is what we evaluated on. > > It's not very important, I just found it another interesting indication > of the "summarization" process losing some nuance. There is a > difference between saying you want (only) "a mobile native app" and > saying you want "a mobile native app or mobile-friendly webapp". After > all, only Github (kinda) has the first, but all three (arguably) have > the second. > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > > -- Leigh Griffin Engineering Manager Red Hat Waterford <https://www.redhat.com/> Communications House Cork Road, Waterford City lgrif...@redhat.com M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin @redhatjobs <https://twitter.com/redhatjobs> redhatjobs <https://www.facebook.com/redhatjobs> @redhatjobs <https://instagram.com/redhatjobs> <https://red.ht/sig>
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
