On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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. I just finished reading the fixed proposal (Or actually, I just finished reading the full thread). Thanks for the head's up. - Gilboa -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
