Hi, Am Samstag 28 Juni 2008 13:37:06 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > On Saturday 28 June 2008 00:08:20 Stefan Potyra wrote: > > Subquestions are: what do you (members of motu-release) would like to > > add, what did you observer generally in regards to motu-release, what to > > improve? > > One thing that irked me, and I would really do something about for > Intrepid, was the fact that two positive votes are enough to approve any > FFe, no matter if 3 out of 5 members are against it.
hm... that implies that we came to (a number of) bad decisions? Do you have the feeling that we performed badly in this regard? (Personally, I recall only one problematic case, and that was the envy issue, where I was the major guilty party, sorry. In retrospect, I guess I wouldn't have acted that way there). > I would definitively change this to a majority vote. The problem is that > with the current number of members this would require 3/5 to pass which > might not be attainable in a reasonable amount of time. > Reducing the number of members to 3 (and therefore having 2/3 to pass) > doesn't seem a good idea too. > So, I'd propose a +2 in a (insert a reasonable amount of time here, 2 days > since the date a _valid_ request was filed seems reasonable to me) ? The > obvious drawback is that no FFe can be approved before the 2 days elapse, > in my view a reasonable price to pay. > > An alternative would be to have a veto system, in which any member can stop > the regular process by simply objecting (obviously with reasonable > arguments) against the FFe. In this case the FFe will not be approved until > the required majority is obtained. hm... in theory, this is a good proposal, but I have doubts that it will work in practice. Looking back, I've been having a hard time just to keep up with FFe requests in general, so tracking majority votes would even add another burden on motu-release imho. Maybe it could still work though, and I've been thinking about the following since a while: Imho much motu-release work apart from making decisions is also to track FFe requests, pinging the requestor in case there are question unanswered or trying to find requests were no vote from motu-release have been cast since some time or fixing bug status. I guess these tasks could also be fulfilled by other people than motu-release, e.g. bug triagers. > > I'd also discourage the practice of accepting an FFe on the base of a short > IRC chat without apparently any research on the implications and background > of the request. Agreed, that makes tracking imho much harder. > We have an FFe process so lets make the best use of it (accepting an FFe > because your buddy is asking you to do it on IRC, or because somebody you > trust is telling you that it will be good to have that package, are not, in > my humble view, good reasons to accept an FFe). Fully agreed :). > > Finally, I always found a nonsense that we have a rather strict system > until few days before release and then exactly when we should really > tighten the tap, we relax all requirements (its enough to have one IRC > approval without sometime even filing a request). Agreed. However very shortly before the release, I guess it's time for motu-release to cherrypick stuff we really think necessary to get in. And especially in the last remaining hours, availability of motu-release members is problematic. Not too sure what's the best approach here, *shrug* Cheers, Stefan.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
