On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 09:21 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > If there's one thing I regret it's that we didn't push this release as > "The big performance push" To me this is simply a proof that the release notes process followed until now is either outdated or broken. The people who took over the 2.16 release notes didn't have knowledge and authority enough to impose that header and not another one (there were some candidates). The rest were busy with the 2.16 development sprint or on holidays. The "junior" team that worked on the release notes had in fact all the information and skills to produce the best release notes ever. If only we would had 2 months instead of 2 weeks, and a clear leader to decide quickly when quick decision were needed. I had to start coordinating and I had to leave the coordination due to personal compromises. I had a plan but Claus had another plan, but then the move to DocBook and the CVS came having as a first step the copy of the previous structure, which was at the end a third plan de facto. The 2.16 release notes are a product of all this brief period of chaos. Starting before in order to have more time is not enough. We have some structural problems, starting with the lack of a common vision (oh, I said "vision") of what the release notes are for and all that debate. We still have time and the resources needed to solve all this for the 2.18 release. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org | http://pinguino.tv
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part