About the role of the Release (again)

Hi everybody,

as you can remember, last year we discussed about the role and scope of
the Release Team on our team meeting, and we raised that question to
last year AGM. And this year those topics were raised again. First at
the Q&A keynote, recently on the marketing list (although more oriented
to marketing, "Release change proposal"), and again, at the Advisory
Board meeting. So it would be good to conclude something here, for good
or bad, instead of creating a new recurring topic on GNOME.

The response of the community during our AGM presentation last year was
in general positive with respect to increase the current role and scope
of the release team. After that AGM presentation, we had a follow-up
Foundation IRC meeting, but the discussion went off track and no real
consensus was reached.

IMHO, the first thing to debate if we are willing to expand our role and
scope, assuming that is what the Foundation members want us to do. If we
are, then let's ask the community if that is what they want. If not, we
should document with more detail what we are, what we do, and how far we
will go on our duties. I mention "how far" because that was raised by
Colin on our meeting here at GUADEC with the specific example of bluez

During the AdBoard meeting, Karen suggested that one approach might be
to have the Foundation vote. This should make it pretty clear what the
community feels about our role and the scope of our work. A tentative
wording of the poll could be:

"When there is a strong difference of opinion related to a change made
within a core GNOME module, the Release Team has the authority to serve
as mediator in the hopes of finding a solution which is agreeable to all
parties. Failing that, the Release Team has the authority to veto the
inclusion of the change in GNOME releases".

FWIW, the difference with respect to what we have now. What we have now
is the authority to veto the inclusion of some module if it is not
working. In this case we are talking about working changes, but that are
"problematic". In my head, a example of this would be what happened with

So this was the objective message. About my personal opinion, I have
some doubts, so I will wait a little before giving an opinion.

Thanks for listening

Best regards

Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias

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