On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 14:31 -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > > In general, FESCO should appoint an arbitrator who a) isn't known to > have problems dealing with either party, nor with the guys doing the > guidelines, and b) doesn't have a specific vested interest in the > package in question. > > Probably also they shouldn't be a FESCO member. If there's a serious > conflict between people that's really getting out of hand, they and the > board ultimately need to be the cooler heads that have to prevail. +1. /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
