[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Invite to join the Release Team

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 08:11:00AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Duh... everybody should care. Skip this.

I find this offensive.

> You're not a reporter that quotes what other people are saying.
> This should be using "we":

As in the previous case, I am writing this in my own voice.  I am
not going to write things that I disagree with; whoever sends out
the release announcement can add those things and make sure my name
is not associated with them or part of this "we".  I only included
Andi's comments in the interest of fuller transparency.

> Strangely I find that paragraph more effective (in terms of motivating
> people) than the rest ;-)

It is coincidentally the one I know most about.

> You must define that date as a target (reaching it should make people
> proud of having helped in the process) and not as some sort of
> possibility.

This mirrored the tone of the meeting notes, I think.

> Otherwise, it's fine as a status update IMO.


> Actually, we should give our developers (and the press who is reading
> that as well) an truthfull "status quo" of our activities. Also, it's
> not "Andreas Barth wants that", but either the release team wants it,
> or we don't want it.

I don't want that.  When I accepted the release team's "invitation" to
help I thought I made it pretty clear that I wasn't willing to do
everything your way.  Please be explicit if you do not want my

> Why did you make all these bug release critical? Release Goal bugs are
> *not* release critical, and please don't do massupgrades without
> prior ack from the release team. Gerfried has fixed that now again
> thankfully.

Technically it was only the IPv6 and LFS bugs.  I think that raising
goal bugs to 'serious' is the right thing to do.  I do not think the
reasons that you and Gerfried have for opposing this are very compelling.
However, I see no reason to fight about this; if no one cares about
those release goals, obviously they will not be achieved.

Reply to: