On 08/13/2010 10:47 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> No. No SIG's have any authority whatsoever over individual package >> maintainers outside the packages the team maintains. No one needs to >> "comply" with your requirements. > That's exactly Fedora's organizational problem. > > KDE SIG should have authority over anything KDE-related. Likewise, the Perl > SIG should have authority over anything Perl-related: if the Perl SIG > decides that a new Perl developer @ RH should have commit access to all > perl-* packages, it should be their decision to do so, it was really > counterproductive of FESCo to interfere with that! > So if someone writes a KDE plugin for Application XYZ, it becomes a KDE package? What? My understanding of the SIG concept was that they were groups of people who were self-organizing around a particular theme to further that theme in Fedora, i.e. Games, Live Upgrade, KDE, etc. I never got the impression that they were little fiefdoms with absolute power. This is shades of the Federal-power vs. State's Rights debate in the U.S. And for similar reasons, it seems. -J >> If you want a integrated experience, don't work around upstream. Push >> your patches and get it merged there. > Good luck getting Mozilla to accept anything. Just like the kernel, they're > a very hard to work with upstream. If you don't know the right people, your > stuff just doesn't get in. :-( > > Providing system integration is exactly what a distribution is for. You will > never achieve an integrated experience by just throwing together disparate > upstream tarballs. > > Kevin Kofler > -- - in your fear, speak only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
