On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 08:26:54AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On 05/21/2009 04:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:14:03PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: >> >> That's the problem with email threads that are so large. People miss things >> because they don't always read every single email, regardless of what position >> in the thread it was. Even if they do, they might be busy replying to flames >> and other useless junk instead of important stuff. >> > [...] >> >>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg01414.html >> > Note, as mentioned there, the questions I raised in the original > ticket[1]_ still weren't answered either. Those questions were about > applying the policy to real packages to delimit the intended scope. I am aware of this. So, I could go on answering your perfectly valid questions based on my own opinion, which may or may not have any relevance to what FESCo decides. We could rinse and repeat all of that for whatever FESCo member chose to do so. We could further have more questions on this list directed at FESCo and expecting individual replies to them based on official statements from a _committee_. Or instead, we could state that this questions are noted, valued, and important and let FESCo discuss them as a _committee_ during it's designated _meeting_ it has weekly to discuss such issues. That would seem to be more prudent than just having a bunch of people reply with "I don't speak for FESCo but...". Toshio, I realize that your questions were asked before FESCo originally voted on the proposal. The fact that they weren't answered by the committee when they seem entirely relevant would appear to be a mistake on FESCo's part. Now that the issue has been raised again for discussion, perhaps we can wait for the meeting tomorrow and see what comes of it. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
