#23 Regular rebuild of Leap installation Media
Closed: Rejected 2 years ago by Pharaoh_Atem. Opened 2 years ago by DocB.

Leap 15.3 Gold master contained some bugs that affected installation.
These bugs are fixed in between, but the installation media available from download.o.o are still buggy.
I would like the Board to request regular (monthly) rebuilds of the Leap installation media in order to improve user experience


Wouldn't this be a request for @lkocman or someone else in Leap Release Engineering?

Metadata Update from @Pharaoh_Atem:
- Issue tagged with: policies

2 years ago

Yes, but the From: is different if the Board requests it....

Metadata Update from @Pharaoh_Atem:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

2 years ago

Wouldn't this be a request for @lkocman or someone else in Leap Release Engineering?

I think so, we can ask people nicely to do things as a board but we probably can't tell them to. I also don't think we need time based (Monthly) rebuilds but only ones when something significant changes. There have been security related issues in the past that have meant that stuff gets rebuilt but from memory it takes some amount of effort.

Metadata Update from @simotek:
- Issue untagged with: meeting

2 years ago

If I remember correctly, SLE does quarterly respins of the media. Would it make sense to implement a similar process to Leap?

Metadata Update from @Pharaoh_Atem:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

2 years ago

i liked this idea to respin the images like once a month/two months if its not too much of a job, but guess most job can be automated and that there is enough diskspace for another image

I think it is rather inappropriate for the Board to be providing dictats
on technical matters to openSUSE contributors.

I would much rather see such proposals discussed in the appropriate
public forums (eg Factory list) rather then the Board misusing it's
meetings to make decisions of this type and then further abusing its
position of trust to insert one of it's members into existing meetings
and processes.

The openSUSE RelEng Team meetings already have Board representation
under it's scope as a facilitator of discussions with the community, so
it is plainly obvious to me that Axel's addition is stretching beyond
that.

@DocB's comment of "Yes, but the From: is different if the Board requests it...." makes it clear that he wished to misuse the influence of the Board, beyond the documented scope of the Board's role in the Project.

This should not be acceptable.

Please can I be provided with a list of which members voted for or
against this decision?

Nobody voted on this at all. In fact, I specifically said that we should work with the releng team to figure out a reasonable cadence after talking to @lkocman about it. I had previously talked to @lkocman about the idea after the repo setup disaster, and he was in support of such a thing after we get all the enqueued updates released.

My understanding is that @DocB was only to suggest that the Board would like the release engineering team to consider doing a one-off after all the day zero updates are released and consider scheduling regular respins for 15.4.

That being said, the correct place to request regular respins to be considered for 15.4 is the Leap Feature Request project managed by @lkocman and myself.

And since when was the Board elected to be technical arbiters of what goes on in the Project?

Come on Neal, the documented role of the Board is clear:

https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board

"The board should provide guidance and support existing governance structures, but shouldn't direct or control development, since community mechanisms exist to accomplish the goals of the project. "

This Ticket is a perfect example of the Board directing development.

That is not the Board's Job. It undermines the intended role of the Board if the Board over-reaches its intended function and starts imposing itself upon the community in ways they are not elected to do so.

It doesn't matter that I 100% support the proposal being made here, and 100% support Doc's right as a community member to raise the issue, it SHOULD NOT be done as "The Board".

The community mechanisms exist. The issue should have been raised via them, such as in the factory list.

Doing things this way is WRONG, and it should be stopped before it undermines trust in the Board and the work it is meant to be doing.

"The board should provide guidance and support existing governance structures, but shouldn't direct or control development, since community mechanisms exist to accomplish the goals of the project. "

Yes, but we can make suggestions and provide guidance, both as individuals and as a group. While it's certainly true we can't direct/control how things go (and @simotek makes this clear in this ticket as well), we are allowed to have an opinion and convey that.

The community mechanisms exist. The issue should have been raised via them, such as in the factory list.

This, I agree with for sure. It should have been done on the development list first, and a request to have this done regularly should have been filed as a feature request for Leap.

Honestly, I think people defaulting to the Board for this is a failure of communication of process. This is something that I (as an individual) have been working to fix throughout aspects of the project.

I hope that we'll see less of this over time, since there will be clearer mechanisms for communicating such things by individuals.

I'm closing this ticket because this is outside the purview of the Board. If @DocB wants this for Leap, please file this in the appropriate location.

Metadata Update from @Pharaoh_Atem:
- Issue untagged with: meeting
- Issue close_status updated to: Rejected
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Honestly, I think people defaulting to the Board for this is a failure of communication of process. This is something that I (as an individual) have been working to fix throughout aspects of the project.

I hope that we'll see less of this over time, since there will be clearer mechanisms for communicating such things by individuals.

How will it happen less when the Board itself sets the bad example?

You (the Board) are meant to "Facilitate communication with all areas of the community"

And yet this thread stands as an example of the Board negating communication with all areas of the community by NOT ensuring this issue was raised on the community list before it raised, as the Board, what our contributors should do.

I don't think I'm wrong to expect better from the Board...

Honestly, I think people defaulting to the Board for this is a failure of communication of process. This is something that I (as an individual) have been working to fix throughout aspects of the project.

I hope that we'll see less of this over time, since there will be clearer mechanisms for communicating such things by individuals.

How will it happen less when the Board itself sets the bad example?

You (the Board) are meant to "Facilitate communication with all areas of the community"

And yet this thread stands as an example of the Board negating communication with all areas of the community by NOT ensuring this issue was raised on the community list before it raised, as the Board, what our contributors should do.

I don't think I'm wrong to expect better from the Board...

First and foremost, we're made up of (fallible) individuals who are just trying to do their best with the wetware we have. :sweat_smile:

With that in mind, when something like this comes up, just let us know and we'll correct ourselves. We are all trying to do the right thing here. :wink:

As it is, I just closed this ticket and redirected people to the right place for such requests. In the future, if something like this happens and I know where it's supposed to go, I'll do that then too.

I think it is rather inappropriate for the Board to be providing dictats
on technical matters to openSUSE contributors.

Ahh Richard, you were not at the meeting so stop making assumptions based on the way things were recorded in the minutes. The board made no "dictats" on this topic, the board made a polite suggestion that we thought that this is a way we can improve, either see it through the lens of "Initiate discussions about new project wide initiatives" or "facilitate communication" as it was something that was raised with us. We believe the correct place for such a decision was with the release engineering team which is why we chose there meeting as a place to raise it for discussion. As Gerald was unable to make the call this week and next we chose to send Axel to ask on our behalf.

The board never made a "Technical Decision" in this regard we only made a decision to ask the people who should make the "Technical Decision" to look into it.

As we have now done this, this ticket can be closed because this ticket served as our reminder to talk to the release engineering team.

I think it is rather inappropriate for the Board to be providing dictats
on technical matters to openSUSE contributors.

Ahh Richard, you were not at the meeting so stop making assumptions based on the way things were recorded in the minutes. The board made no "dictats" on this topic, the board made a polite suggestion that we thought that this is a way we can improve, either see it through the lens of "Initiate discussions about new project wide initiatives" or "facilitate communication" as it was something that was raised with us. We believe the correct place for such a decision was with the release engineering team which is why we chose there meeting as a place to raise it for discussion. As Gerald was unable to make the call this week and next we chose to send Axel to ask on our behalf.

The board never made a "Technical Decision" in this regard we only made a decision to ask the people who should make the "Technical Decision" to look into it.

As we have now done this, this ticket can be closed because this ticket served as our reminder to talk to the release engineering team.

I am not making assumptions based on what was recorded in the minutes, but what is clear as print here.

"Yes, but the From: is different if the Board requests it...." should have been a red flag. The community should react to community requests, and "it is different if the Board requests it" should never be an excuse to bypass our community processes.

Furthermore, it is clear from the RelEng meeting minutes that the 'request' was clearly received as a 'TODO from Board'

https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/factory@lists.opensuse.org/thread/45LQBQ2RWWSBMRBCW6AAXMQPBLWR5VVV/

The Board should never be providing TODO's to our technical teams. You know this, so please don't dismiss my feedback here.

You are being seen to be conducting yourselves in a way inconsistent with your charter. See my feedback as an opportunity to improve, both your actions, how they are perceived, and how they minuted. Please.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata