On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 22:43 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 13:10 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > > This doesn't prevent him from leaving abusive comments in our bug reports. > > > This is IMHO the bigger issue. > > > > My $0.02: > > > > Abusive comments in these particular bug reports, in the scheme of things, > > is a non-issue. Or rather, a symptom of a larger issue. Namely: > > > > Who owns the upstream for RPM? And why are we avoiding this question like > > the plague? > > > > Here's the fact: for years and years and years, RPM was maintained by a > > Red Hat employee. In fact, RPM was called "Red Hat Package Manager" until > > we decided to gift it to the world and change the name to the more > > traditionally self-referential "RPM Package Manager." > > > > But that didn't change the fact that, for years and years, Red Hat was the > > upstream. Not jbj -- Red Hat. > > > > When we fired jbj, we didn't have the courage to draw a line in the sand > > and say "we're taking upstream ownership of RPM back." Why not? Because > > we thought it would be difficult politically? Because we didn't want the > > responsibility anymore? Because nobody in management actually cared > > enough to think about the ramifications? I don't know. > > > > Fast forward a year plus, and here we are. We're in a position where we > > have, essentially, forked RPM -- and no one is willing to admit it. No > > one is willing to take ownership of what we've done. > > > > Perhaps jbj "owns" RPM, in its current incarnation, by default, because no > > one else is willing to touch it. That's fine. He can have it. But that > > is not what *we* are using. > > > > Here are the questions that we *must* answer. If internal engineering at > > Red Hat is not willing to answer them, then the august body that is the > > Fedora Board must at least take a position. > > > > 1. Who is the upstream provider of RPM? Is it rpm.org? jbj? Red Hat? > > Fedora? > > > > 2. If we are not the upstream of RPM -- and I'd argue we're not -- is it > > our intention to reunite with the RPM codebase at some point in the > > future, or not? > > > > 3. If we are not going to rejoin with upstream RPM -- and I'd argue we're > > not -- then we have, in fact, forked RPM. Therefore, what's the name of > > the new project, who is the upstream (Red Hat? Fedora?) and how do we act > > as an effective upstream for this project? > > > > We will continue to deal with these unpleasant issues until we have the > > courage to resolve them. > > > > I believe this is more or less what I said at the last fedora board > meeting. > Anyone else there feel free to correct me if I'm misremembering it. You're not, this is what you said as I recall it. > Paul Nasrat is willing to take over our fork of rpm and move forward. We > just have to make sure he can make it a priority. > > Can we do that? I wonder what we gain or lose by announcing the fork explicitly, if so. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
