Re: Co-maintainersip policy for Fedora Packages

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

 



Roozbeh Pournader schrieb:
> On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 15:26 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> I don't want to much bureaucracy, but some is needed. If you have
>> special points you'd like to see improved/changed in the proposal please
>> be more specific, send me a diff (preferred), or write a proposal please.
> Not really. I was mostly telling what I felt.

BTW, and more in general then on this specific topic: I also fear that
we sooner or later have to much "bureaucracy". That probably happens
over time always in projects like Fedora. Thus we now and then should
revisit and/or slightly adjust all the policies. That's btw a reasons
why I think the policies should not be protected by ACLs in the wiki.

> I can't say I know good
> ways to fix it, but I would prefer more simplified policies, so people
> could recall them without thinking instead of looking them up each time.

Well, that's what the digest is for IMHO. Reading it should be enough
normally (e.g. for new contributors). The other stuff is more a "if you
want to now the details or hit a complex situation".

Cu
thl

--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers

--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux