Josh Boyer wrote:
> The time period is mere speculation on your part.
It's not just mere speculation, the idea has been brought up by nirik,
citing EPEL as precedent:
[begin quote (from the meeting log)]
Feb 23 21:40:50 * nirik notes the maintainer also requested a push to
stable in epel, but the epel policy of 2 weeks in testing was observed
instead.
[snip not directly related discussion]
Feb 23 21:53:23 * nirik personally thinks the epel process has been
working nicely...
[snip not directly related discussion]
Feb 23 21:53:41 <skvidal> nirik: I think time-based is probably a hang
up - but....
[end quote]
> You've left out parts that were discussed in the meeting as options (like
> mechanisms to allow direct-to-stable pushes with FESCo/rel-eng/QA karma)
That was my suggestion. All I got was negative comments (AIUI, nobody else
wanted anything less than a majority of FESCo to be able to approve direct
stable pushes, at least nobody said otherwise in the meeting), and even
outright accusations of proposing ad personam rules:
[begin quote (from the meeting log)]
Feb 23 21:58:17 <notting> Kevin_Kofler: of course you'd say 1 FESCo
member, becuase from your statements, it sounds like you would intentionally
sabotage the process and approve everything
[end quote]
> Transparency in process is great and I think it is extermely important.
> What you've done is not transparency. What you've started is a smear
> campaign against a draft policy that hasn't even been written yet. Way to
> be a class-A dickhead.
Transparency means asking for feedback BEFORE writing the policy. The sooner
you involve the community, the better. Putting out a policy as "take it or
leave it", or worse "take it, you have to, we voted it through already" is
not transparent.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
