Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 08:52 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating: >> No, that's one view of it. >> >> It's just a proposal, you're welcome to suggest changes or make your own >> proposal like Robert did. > > In my very first email in this thread I wrote that I fully support > Robert's proposal. With a single confinement: Robert suggested this to > be some automatic process that happens in FAS. I would like to do this > by mail. IMO this is more simple and more in public. I'd like to be able > to follow the discussion while FAS is anonymous. > +1 to mail vs FAS. I like the model adopted for packager sponsors here being applied to provenpackager. Although that does make me ask -- is there any reason to have separate discussions for packager-sponsor and provenpackager? They have different powers but not necessarily different reasons for trust (I expect a sponsor to know the Guidelines and packaging well enough to sponsor people who can also follow the Guidelines. I expect provenpackagers to understand the Guidelines and packaging well enough to make well--thought-out changes to packages that they don't own. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
