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

Re: Package Maintainers Flags policy

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 11:08:09 +0200
Denis Leroy <denis poolshark org> wrote:

Thanks Ewan,

To summarize the votes:

Dennis Gilmore: +1
David Woodhouse: +1
Bill Nottingham: +1
Jon Stanley: +1
Dan Horak: +1
Kevin Fenzi: +1

I agree that we could come up with a better policy.

Yes, tabling this issue and working out a sustainable solution would have been the appropriate approach. So far, to me, FESCO's decision is a short-sighted hip-shot, without any foundation nor long term-perspective.

Harmful to FESCO, harmful to Fedora, without providing a solution.

The policy "came from" legal concerns. Thus I think it's a a good idea
to address it before we have to scramble to do so. I thought it was a
better policy than 'no flags', but perhaps it's not.

Well, I am sure, FESCO will now will initiate the necessary measures to initiate the "youth protection" certification processes, whose absence so far legally threads Fedora vendors/distributors from different countries around the globe?

The "fesco is lazy and should resign" or "I just hate this" or
"Here's specific examples of flags" I don't find productive or useful.
The policy is not good, we should address it and get one thats better.
We will.
Frankly, this is the worst FeSCo we have had in years,

Elections are taking place soon. Feel free to run.
Pardom? In a democracy, the natural consequence of people feeling dissatisfied with the ruling party, is to vote against them or to abstain from voting, when feeling "there is no voteable candidate" or when feeling "voting is useless".


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