On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 06:47:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > >Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal: > > > >> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that > >> meeting. > >> > >> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it? > > > >Seth, respect would be a good starting point. > > > >> 20:45:30 <cwickert> I know there are people that will leave Fedora if > >> we decide a policy that forbids major updates. both users and > >> contributors > >> 20:45:42 <skvidal> cwickert: people threatening to leave should leave > >> 20:45:48 <skvidal> orphan your packages and go > >> 20:45:57 <skvidal> I'll be glad to clean up that mess > > While the phrasing may or may not be over the top, I read that more as: > > "We shouldn't be held hostage to various threats. We shouldn't be afraid to > try something because a vocal few are ranting against it." Imho there is no evidence, whether these are few or many people that are negatively affected by this. > I could, of course, be very wrong. However threatening to leave the project > if various things aren't done exactly one's way isn't very respectful either. Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers. No volunteer package maintainer is in general forced to create updates and I am very sure that the volunteer package maintainers usually do not create updates that they do not want to use. So if you forbid package maintainers to package the version they want or need to use, being a fedora package maintainer becomes pretty useless for them. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpd1vyS7MspK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
