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

Re: Request for voting SIG



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


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