About the cycles: The problems with 6-months have been pointed out - my main concern would be the lack of manpower and the continuous state of "pre-release", no real room to sit back and contemplate hwat is and what could be and all the rest. IMHO such a "contemplating" time is necessary to keep the whole picture in focus.
The problems with 12-months have also been pointed out and I agree with them (too long out of public focus, too long for the main userland applications, etc.). The 9-months seem to be a compromise - but I start to ask why we need such a fixed statement (which it would be, once published). We need a schedule for each cycle, that's true. Without a schedule we would never finish anything. But how about taking 9 months only as a "nice to meet" target, leaving us the option to set a roadmap after setting the specs of the next release - we could then go for a 8 or 10 months roadmap, depending on the specs. This being said, I am a friend of a rolling release like ArchLinux, but I fear that our main target group is not up to this. Despite of having to "burn yet another DVD" as somebody pointed out, the majority seems to see this as normal and a good way. Of course I may be totally wrong with this assessment! -- wobo
