Adam Williamson pÃÅe v Ne 31. 10. 2010 v 18:06 -0700: > On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 04:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Yet another blatant example of > > failure of the Update Acceptance Criteria, needlessly exposing our users to > > critical vulnerabilities. > > Kevin, could you *please* not word things like that? There's just no > need for it. > > I already wrote this to -test a couple of days ago: > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-October/095135.html > > and we're discussing it there. I think the thread demonstrates things > tend to go much more constructively if you avoid throwing words like > 'blatant' and 'failure' and 'needlessly' around. Did we not fail our users? Was there a real need to fail them? (As a non-native speaker, I won't judge the relative merits of "blatant" vs. "sucks".) > We designed a policy, > put it into effect, now we're observing how well it works and we can > modify its implementation on the fly. It doesn't need to be done in an > adversarial spirit. Given that _this exact scenario_ was repeatedly brought up since the very start of the update acceptance criteria proposals, I think some frustration is quite justified. This situation is not really a surprise, and Fedora did not have to unnecessarily expose users to a vulnerability in order to relearn this lesson. In addition to being constructive about remedying the situation, shouldn't we try to be more constructive about _not introducing such situations_ in the first place? Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
