FESCo approved the new anaconda feature in F18 despite it having no contingency plan, which resulted into ongoing slips for F18 GA. A proposal to revert back has been dismissed by both FESCo and the anaconda maintainers for various reasons (other features depended on it).
This already happened, we cannot go back in time and do something about it, but it is obvious that this was suboptimal so we should learn from it and improve the process.
Should we disallow features that have no reasonable contingency plans in the future? Or should we require a roadmaps for "big" (how do we define big?) features to be able to react sooner ("this seems to be moving way slower as it should, lets punt it to the next release") ? Something else?
Please see already open ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/896
Replying to [comment:1 kevin]:
This ins't really the same though. This one is about the specific case of allowing features with no contingency plans while the other one is a more general thing.
There. I added a comment to the other ticket to cover your concern.
There is no need to have two tickets with almost the same title open to fix the feature process.
Login to comment on this ticket.