On Saturday 28 June 2008 07:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. > 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.
I generally operated this way myself. My view is that if somone on motu-release has expressed objections, the FFe should not be approved until those are resolved. I think we did this in general (see the envy-ng FFe for an example). I think +2 with no objection is enough. I think that informally we mostly operated this way and it worked well enough. > 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. > 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). I think it's up to each member of motu-release to use their best judgement. I don't recall seeing any "becaue my buddy asked me to do it" situations. I do think it's reasonable to consider the source of recommendations and accept advice from experts. Along those lines, I think delegating specific packages/package types to specialists (e.g asac and mozilla related things) worked well and should be done again. > 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). > Personally I'm more concerned with getting motu-release review and approval. I think there should definitely be a bug to keep track of what happened. I'm less worried about what order things happen in. In past releases we've had trouble with not all FFe (UVFe) being processed in a timely manner. It was much better this time, but we did have one. The first Universe upload to hardy-updates was a missed bug in the gfortran transition. I think that we need to keep the process light weight and flexible. I don't think in this release any FFe filers felt unresponded to even if they didn't always get the answer they wanted. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
