On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:40:46 +0100 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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] Thanks for taking my quote out of context. I was saying the EPEL policy seemed to be working well for EPEL. That wasn't a "We should immediately do this now in fedora", but just a datapoint. > 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. Perhaps Matthew has been busy and unable to do this yet? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
