On Wed, 20 May 2009 11:08:09 +0200 Denis Leroy <denis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Thanks Ewan, > > 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. I agree that we could come up with a better policy. I think the number of packages is pretty limited here. I know of about 5 so far. Unfortunately I don't know an easy way to identify any beyond that. Do you? The policy "came from" legal concerns. Thus I think it's a a good idea to address it before we have to scramble to do so. I thought it was a better policy than 'no flags', but perhaps it's not. My understanding is that we split out things to make it easier for places that dislike flags to filter or otherwise block them. I agree that base packages that have essential flags wouldn't be identified then. > 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. I do. I however have a day job and figure I can spend my time more productively for Fedora than responding to each of the 278 posts in this thread. Many of which are not constructive or useful. Out of those 278 posts, there have been I think about 4 counter proposals. For those that were constructive and offered them up I thank you. Personally I think this thread could have been about 10 posts: - Point out the problems with the passed policy (Which I admit freely it has). (one or two posts. Or even the paragraph above does that). - Offer some specific counter proposal or changes to the existing policy to make it more clear or better suit fedora's goals. - Someone could have figured out a list of affected packages. (How many of these affected packages do you maintain?) The "fesco is lazy and should resign" or "I just hate this" or "Here's specific examples of flags" I don't find productive or useful. The policy is not good, we should address it and get one thats better. We will. > 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. Elections are taking place soon. Feel free to run. I note that the majority of the current fesco has served many times before, so I don't think this is any radical change of elected members. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
