On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:02:10AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 15:53 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 06.03.2007 15:36, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:28:48AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > > >> We've been discussing Fedora User Management in EPEL. I propose a vote, > > >> all maintainers are welcome to vote. The outcome is FINAL. If we chose > > > A vote isn't the way to go in my opinion. The number of people is not > > > relevant when it comes to technical issues. > > > > Agreed -- it's important that the people that make the decision know the > > pros and cons of the different proposed solutions. That's IMHO often not > > the case for complicated technical issues like this if the group that is > > voting is big. > > > > > Collecting people thoughts > > > on that matter would be interesting though, but I think having FESCo > > > or FPC choose would be better. > > > > +1 -- they finally have to ratify the solution anyway. But the issue > > nevertheless can and of course should get discussed in public. > > I'd want to know the outcome of an EPEL SIG vote before trying to decide > anything on this. That's what SIGs are for. The EPEL seems to be mostly against this tool, but doesn't vote because it considers it a Fedora issue that needs to be resolved in Fedora land. So waiting for a vote from the EPEL sig while this is waiting for this vote may look like a dead-lock. ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpezUn6LKlGj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
