On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 07:16 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Don't put more bureaucracy or hurdles in the way. That's a sensible request. > That won't scale and > will frustrate people and some will feel a second-class citizen (I > already feel unwanted more and more in Fedora-land after this discussion > because I never found time to learn proper programming -- mostly due to > fact that most of my free time is already filled with Fedora-related work). I'm sorry you feel that way, and I believe that you shouldn't. They are two entirely separate skill sets, and it doesn't necessarily follow that a non-programmer packager should be 'training' to become a programmer, or vice versa. You are very good at packaging software, and not a programmer. There's no shame in that. I am... well, I manage to scrape a living by programming, but I suck at packaging things because I don't have the attention-span for it. I don't feel particularly shameful about that either. Shipping software and supporting it requires input from both of us. I'd like us to have a sensible discussion about how we handle that requirement, without anyone feeling unwanted. > We have a lot of non-hackers that maintain packages in Fedora and it > worked well so far and that in parts made Fedora what it is today. What > IMHO would be good instead of what you outline: groups of people (SIGs) > a package-monkey can contact if he needs help to fix or improve > something needs programming skills. Fundamentally, that's fairly much what I was saying. Christian phrases it slightly better, mostly IMHO because he stresses "can and *should*". But I think we are fairly much in agreement about what we'd like to happen in principle; we're just not sure on the details of how to achieve it. I'll follow up to a different mail on that topic... -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
