On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 19:38 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > 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. Um... why? EPEL can't support it in RHEL 4 anyway. I see the two sets being disjoint. It's not a "Fedora" problem. It's an EPEL problem. josh -- 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
