On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 18:07 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > No-one's calling anyone stupid. What would you suggest would be better > > than escalating the issue at the first available opportunity to the > > appropriate authority - FESco - which is exactly what's happened? The > > only alternative is for someone to abuse Red Hat chains of command to > > force some kind of change in this policy, which is exactly the kind of > > thing that should _not_ happen in Fedora. The current process appears to > > precisely the correct one, so far as I can see. The issue will be > > considered in very timely fashion by the appropriately-constituted (and > > majority-elected!) authority, which will decide what the appropriate > > response will be. > > Those aren't the only alternatives. There's also the alternative of > the maintainers voluntarily making a change to accommodate feedback. > A situation where we have one part of the Fedora community giving > unwanted marching orders to the other parts of the Fedora community is > not an optimal result. (Where that's happened before on rare > occasions, it's never been a good thing.) > > I'm not saying that FESCo shouldn't have purview over the issue, just > that you're really drawing a black and white picture where there's > clearly some in-between. Sorry, you're quite right, I shouldn't have omitted that bit. I should've explicitly clarified that the above was working from the basis that the maintainer has already said he's not just going to go ahead and change this. It's also worth noting that there's obviously issues for FESco to discuss here even if the maintainer had decided to go ahead and revert the change, and FESco is the appropriate venue for those wider discussions. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
