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

Re: Voting: repotag for EPEL

On 05.04.2007 08:59, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:42:06AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 04.04.2007 22:30, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SteeringCommittee/Voting#head-efb18a3ff4ed343c4a8aa17dc0a8466bab8c9024
>>> Voting topic: Should EPEL carry a repotag? If yes, the technical
>>> details will be delegated to the Packaging Committee.
>> I'm not going to vote on something where I don't know the technical
>> details yet.
> Yetserday you didn't even want to have EPEL be authoritative opn that
> and wanted to outsource the whole decision to the FPC. Why the change
> of heart? The voting above is the political aspect which we as EPEL
> need to make.

I still want to "outsource the whole decision to the FPC".

The reasons why I don't vote like this ATM: Currently I would vote "no",
as there is no proper solution for repotags in our spec files ATM
(abusing dist is more them sub-optimal, as dist is optional, and thus we
would have a repotag only in a subset of out packages, which IMHO makes
not much sense). But in real life it's no "no" -- if the Packaging
Committee is fine with having a repotag and presents a solution that
makes it easy to move packages between Fedora and EPEL without
adjustments then I would "abstrain", because I don't care about it
(well, in fact I'm a slightly bit against repotags, as we have a field
in the rpm header that serves the same purpose; having a information in
two places sounds wrong to me, but I'm willing to ignore that).

>> I also strongly dislike the kind of voting -- the threads you
>> pointed to are much to confusing and have FUD and personal attacks
>> in it. Before doing a voting on a controversial topic like this it's
>> IMHO really necessary to write a summary about the whole stuff.
> I'm sorry, but I can't control the content of this list, it is free
> for everyone and a thread can have both helpful and less helpful
> content. Dumping the whole discussion because someone tried to
> sabotage it by making it a flamewar is a good tool to stall us
> forever. [...]

Then please write a summary for those that got annoyed after the first
flamebit and stopped reading the thread further. I suppose many people did.

Summing up seems quite important to me, that why I added it to the
voting rules that I proposed for discussion:


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