On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: > Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions > about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground > here. Being qualified to do something does not mean that one always does it perfectly. Almost everyone's qualified to drive, yet road traffic accidents happen _all the time_. The people who built the LHC were no doubt qualified to do yet, yet it turns out to be a bit broken. You can pull examples from literally every sphere of human experience. People make mistakes - even qualified people, even super-proficient people who make far fewer mistakes than *most* people. This is why we do testing. You're behind the debate, in any case; Matthew's proposal was not accepted by FESCo at the meeting. No proposal was fully accepted, but FESCo asked everyone to go and work from Bill Nottingham's proposal (which, if you look at it, is far more moderate) for further review next week. But I thought it was important to make the general point. Being qualified to do something does not mean that you will always do it perfectly. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
