On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:08:09AM +0200, Denis Leroy wrote: > To summarize the votes: > > Dennis Gilmore: +1 > David Woodhouse: +1 > Bill Nottingham: +1 > Jon Stanley: +1 > Dan Horak: +1 > Kevin Fenzi: +1 > > The logs include some pearls, like this one: > > nirik:ok. I'm unclear what problem this is solving off hand... > jds2001: So reading this, it appears that this came from legal. I'm fine > with this policy. > nirik: ok, if it's legal I'm fine with it... > > Nobody is even questioning whether the policy is worth the effort, since > people think this is mandated by Legal. No debate about the proposal > consequences and impact over Fedora packagers. No clear definition about > "there are some flags we can't ship to certain places" and what that > actually means technically. What, you're going to block download > requests coming from the PRC ? What about mirrors ? No debate about how > the RPM split has zero impact over this anyways, and how the > "substantively essential" clause bypasses this also. Not even an attempt > to identify the list of affected packages. > > Of those 6, only 2 commented on this thread, and only 1 admitted this > could have been communicated/handled better (and he gets my respect). I > can only fear the other 4 do not read this mailing list. > > Frankly, this is the worst FeSCo we have had in years, and I'd like > those people to resign immediately from FeSCo and early elections to > take place. I suggest you run for FESCo instead. While you may like for those 6 people to resign, I doubt they will. The election happens rather soon, so you have every opportunity to become elected yourself. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
