Hi -

>>I kinda agree and for me it triggered the interesting question 
>>what nowadays process is.
> 
> At the moment there is no process. What we do have is the Janitors team
> which has been looking into harvesting related issues, granted that Team
> has not yet taken on the big question about exactly how the process
> could work.

Err .... I am perplexed. If I look at 3.8 I find quite a number of fixes 
and enhancements. Surely, there is some process in place right now, or 
else how did these changes get in?

>>With the guides being fired and all I wonder 
>>who is in charge to actually accept contributions?
> 
> Hehe, that is a misleading sentence. First of all, the Guides didn't do
> much harvesting at all and the Harvesters as a group was not equal to
> the guides. Secondly, the issue of stalled harvesting predates the
> forming of the Coordinator group.

Well, I did see the harvesters being part of the guides setup. At least 
I don't see anyone calling himself a harvester anymore, nor do I see 
anyone referring to harvesters any longer. Do I understand correctly 
that for the current setup the "janitors team" plays the role of the 
harvesters, or is this incorrect?

> But the important question of course remains, what model/process do we
> want to have?
> 
> - I know the Janitors team has been doing some thinking. I would like to
> hear more from them in this, because that is after all the team formed
> in that specific area. Ken?

It would be interesting to hear, yes.

> - The packages Team is meant to produce a partitioning during 3.9 which
> means we get people assigned to look after portions of the image as
> packages. This will IMHO greatly improve the situation since all FIXes
> should be handled in a distributed fashion. Unfortunately it seems that
> Team is a bit stalled too, at least when it comes to that specific task.
> Avi?

This is basically TFNR under a different name, right? Why will it work 
better this time compared to when you tried it? If I read the current 
stall correctly, it's the same problem that TFNR had - lack of 
maintainers. Any ideas how to address it differently this time?

> - The release team leader should IMHO focus on dealing with ENHs and
> other planned additions for a release. That doesn't mean the leader does
> all the work, but it means that the Team formed for a release takes the
> overall decisions and actions regarding ENHs and additions, of course in
> synch with the package maintainers mentioned above because they are the
> ones in charge of the various packages.

Correct me if I'm wrong but with "TFNR rules" isn't the *maintainer* 
responsible for integrating enhancements? What has the release team to 
do with that?

> Now... the above describes a model/process which really doesn't have a
> dedicated group of harvesters but instead relies on the image being
> partitioned into packages with maintainers and having dedicated release
> teams, and I think that is the direction we should move.
> 
> What do you all say?

Same thing as last time: Sounds nice if it works ... but ... where are 
you going to find the maintainers? (and by maintainers I don't mean name 
tags I mean people actually putting effort into it)

And besides that, given that none of this is in place what happens in 
the meantime? Nothing?

Cheers,
   - Andreas