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

Re: I must be doing somthing seriously wrong...



On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:14:03PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>The "Package Maintainers Flags policy" thread already counts more than
>225 mails, but nobody bothered to answer 7 simple (?) questions I asked
>in my mail [1], although it was one of the very first three mails on the
>topic. So what did I do wrong? Was it that I mentioned the missing FESCo

That's the problem with email threads that are so large.  People miss things
because they don't always read every single email, regardless of what position
in the thread it was.  Even if they do, they might be busy replying to flames
and other useless junk instead of important stuff.

>meeting minutes? If 8 out of 21 summaries are missing, IMHO this is a
>fact worth mentioning.

They are missing because the minutes are done by FESCo members themselves and
we are humans.  That isn't to say that the minutes aren't important, but that
people make mistakes and are busy and at times, things get missed.  The IRC
logs for almost all the meetings should be available though.

Earlier in the year we tried a rotation of minutes takers to alleviate the
burden on one person, but that seems to have failed.  If someone wanted to
volunteer to be the FESCo secretary, I'm sure we would welcome that.

>I'm one of the few maintainers who directly is affected by the policy.
>Would somebody - preferably a FESCo member, who voted for the flags
>proposal - please be so kind to answer my questions. TIA!

>https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg01414.html

1) The rationale was given by spot here:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg01427.html

or was that not what you were looking for?

2) The advantage for the project was to codify something that has been
dealt with silently since the RHL days.  That being said, the guideline itself
is going to be revisited.

3) Your example of keyboard layout selection seems akin to language selection.
In my opinion, under the existing guideline, the flags would not be allowed but
you could ask FESCo for an exemption.  Note, that is just my opinion and I don't
speak for FESCo as a whole.

4) This is a good question.  If you have specific examples of things that are
not obviously 'religion' that you would like to have evaluated that might help.

5) I don't know the answer to your question, nor do I find it relevant in a
discussion about flags.  It's been pointed out several times that the flags
policy opens doors to madness through defining 'acceptable' content, so let's
not start yet another massive thread about that at the moment.

6) How do you make sure users are aware of -docs packages, or -devel packages?
I see no difference here.

7) As FESCo for an exemption under the current guideline.

josh


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