Re: Architecture qualification meeting for Wheezy

["Niels Thykier" <niels@thykier.net>]

On May 2, 2012 23:09 "Andreas Barth" <aba@ayous.org> wrote:
> * Adam D. Barratt (adam@adam-barratt.org.uk) [120430 20:30]:
> > [...]
> > 
> > So far there have only been two responses, one of which was from me.
> > :-/
> > 
> > If this is due to people not liking the included dates, please
> > suggest
> > others.  We really should decide this stuff soon though...
> 
> As that weekend doesn't work for all, I created a new doodle a week
> later. As Saturday is already busy with the .-release, I only used
> Sunday as options
> http://www.doodle.com/dgi23b5fgxs7vqnk
> 
> I think it would be useful to have all involved parties present (and
> give all interessted porters the chance to join us) so that we could
> get an result we could work on.
> 
> Andi
> 

Hi,

I am beginning to think that postponing the meeting (again?) will not
be a good idea.  Before long, people will not bother filling out "yet
another doodle", as "it will only be replaced by a new doodle".

I think a better alternative would be to work out "our concerns" for
all ports.  These concerns can then be send out to the relevant
porters giving them time to address them.
  I believe this will be better for us, because we will get an
overview of which ports need attention.  But I also think it is better
for the porters as they will (presumably) get more time to fix any
issues we have.
  An important consequence of my proposed alternative is that we will
*not* reject ports at this time.  Though, if there are ports we believe
are all okay at this time, I see no problem in approving them already
now[1].


Phil suggested (over IRC) that we should be able to compile a list of
concerns without doing a meeting.  I am okay with that, but it implies
that people are ready to take the time to write and reply to emails
about it.
  Alternatively, we could just pick one of the slots on the doodle Adam
made and use it for the above purpose.  If nothing else, I hope it
it would at least be a good starting point.

~Niels

[1] Hopefully it would also mean it will be easier to find a meeting
slot later, as porters for these archs probably do not "need" to be
present.