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

Re: proposal: new guidelines for rule makers



On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 10:23 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 02:30 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>> Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> <humor, with a serious undertone>
> >>>>
> >>>> Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out 
> >>>> of touch with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the 
> >>>> following guideline for rulemakers:
> >>>>
> >>>> Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must 
> >>>> actively maintain atleast 30 packages.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that which 
> >>>> is regulated oneself?
> >>>>
> >>>> </humor>
> >>> Packaging guidelines also cover licensing details which isn't connected 
> >>> to workflow.  There are several other policies within the guidelines 
> >>> which involve some amount of politics (kernel modules anyone?). This 
> >>> rule would mean that everybody who proposes any drafts, folks in the 
> >>> packaging committee and FESCo would have to maintain 30 packages.
> >>>
> >> Yes it would, and that would be a good thing! Let the people building the 
> >> distro decide how it is build! As for licensing issues, since RH is paying 
> >> mosts of the bills at the end RH decided what is okay licensing wise, and to me 
> >> they have earned that right, because "paying the bills" == "building the distro"
> > 
> > I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying here, so I'll ask you
> > straight out.
> > 
> > Are you suggesting that because I do not maintain 30 packages I am
> > unqualified to be a member of FESCo?
> > 
> 
> You're taking me to serious here, notice the <humor> at the top of the original 
> post. 

Well, you had ended the </humor> before the suggestion so I wasn't
sure :).

> I've no intention to actually try and instantiate such a rule. I'm 
> however woried that there seems to be a growing drift between the rule makers 
> within Fedora and those running the primary process.

I see.  That is a valid concern, and one which I believe everyone wants
to address now that F7 is out and people aren't running and screaming
about getting it done :)

josh


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