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

Re: Voting: repotag for EPEL

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:22:37AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 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".
> [...] Currently I would vote "no", [...] But in real life it's no
> "no" -- if the Packaging Committee is [doing certain things to your
> liking]

That's not outsourcing a decision - that is outsourcing a decision
only if it fits your mindset ;)

It's either us doing the whole act, e.g. decide on the political
content and decide on the technical implementation, or we can move out
the technical implementation to the group that does stuff like that
and trust their (technical) judgement. I don't care about either
model, I just don't want to see the *political* decision being made
*outside* of EPEL.

> >> 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:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-April/msg00003.html

I checked the threads and all names of the people voting appeared in
there, I'm really not game for rereading about 100 emails and summing
them up - if you feel you need to do so, nobody will stop you.

Please, Thorsten, we did set up a voting body to overcome situation
like these w/o endless debates which will eventually all contain some
flamesets or another.

That is not to say we don't want discussion of things that come up for
voting, but if it's been discussed ad nausea already we should spare
ourselved the pain and proceed to finalizing it. And there are already
mechanisms set into the voting procedure to avoid any sneaking in of
stuff nobody knew about.

That's certainly not the case here, most people know too much about
these discussions to keep their lunch in their stomach and want to see
us finalize things and move on.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgp5zJDJP2nMF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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