On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:25:46PM -0700, Matt McCutchen wrote: > I am aware of that. But FESCo has the authority to override the > maintainer, and in their recent discussion of the SELinux patch, they > decided not to move forward on the basis of the trademarks: > > https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-08-03/fesco.2010-08-03-19.30.log.html#l-66 > > Maybe the maintenance burden alone would also be enough to block further > consideration of the patch, but there is no way to tell that from their > discussion. We have the authority to do that, and the decision you're referring to effectively *did* override the maintainer by saying that the selinux policy change should be reverted. If a package is generally well-maintained and then broken by a change introduced by another maintainer, there has to be a very strong argument to do anything other than revert the change that broke things in the first place. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
