On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:15:58PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:59:56AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > Doesn't the threads on fedora-usrmgmt look like a massive yelling? > > I'm sure if it comes to a vote the majority is against the > > imported fedora-usermgmt stuff. > > It is not a valid argument. Having a vote won't cut technical discussion > threads. No, by all means, go on discussing until forever. We do need to come to an end, though. And that's why I see it beneficial, if EPEL decides to ban this until Fedora-land resolves it after the discussion comes to an "end". > > That's not a battle-voting, it's just a conventional vote. > > It is battle voting. There is no consensus on this issue. If there were consensus then there would *never* be a need for voting (and that doesn't only apply to EPEL), right? > > Every sig member, there is not more chaos than discussing things w/o > > ever voting. Voting will *reduce* chaos. > > If you refer to the fedora-usermgmt threads voting won't be sufficient. > Hopefully a vote won't stop people discussing. This is not about censorship, feel free to discuss until forever, I just want to see it resolved, there is now a thorn twisted in EPEL's side, and whatever the result of a vote would be it would at least bring peace to my trouble mind. I'm sure others would like to see this ending, too. > > A steeringless project is inevitably following Brown's law rather than > > being productive. I certainly feel less than productive with the > > usermgmt stuff taking so much of my epel time. > > A steering commitee won't help cutting discussions. Or do you want that? We are not censoring anyone, but we need to take actions, too. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpnaJQzJjtIT.pgp
Description: PGP signature