Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 03.09.2007 16:40, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
IOW: if the professional part and their people that were responsible for
putting the boring paperwork in place should have an open ear and react
quickly to comments like "you made the workflow harder" or "I'm not as
effective as before" to keep the spare-time-contributors happy, as they
are doing some good work as well -- thus the professional part should
not risk to loose or burn them.
This distinction is false. Luke worked on Bodhi voluntarily too. Very
few people are working on Fedora full time.
I beg to differ -- Luke is not *responsible* for putting that boring
paperwork put in place, so it's IMHO not his fault. Those that wanted
bodhi are either paid for working on Fedora or members of FESCo afaics
If you are referring to Bodhi are "boring paperwork", it was put up
there to manage the repository after the merge. The merge brings in
additional policies in place include freezes, actually having a
announcement associated with an update which explains why you are
pushing that update to the end user, pushing updates to updates-testing,
closing relevant bugs etc. These might all be boring but necessary
changes. AFAIK, this was done because the people involved believed that
the advantages of a merge outweighs the short term disadvantages of
having newer tools in place which might require improvements. If you
have got any alternative solutions now that we are where we are, list
them. That is better than figuring out where to assign blame.
FESCo is a elected body. Right? If FESCo takes a decision, everybody
assumes responsibility for those actions have elected them in the first
place.
Rahul
--
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
