On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:38:00PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:17:46PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > > It is unfortunate FESCo members blindly +1'd this feature without a > > bit of evidence or thought. Yes, I read the meeting log. It took > > just three minutes to pass. > > The feature was +1ed on the assumption that the feature owner, as a > maintainer of relevant code, is in a better position to judge the impact > on the packages they're working on than people who don't have that level > of expertise in the area in question. If the change turns out to have a > negative effect on the distribution as a whole then that's something > that should be discussed. If there's no more reasonable solution then it > should be reverted. But at present procedure is working pretty much > exactly as expected. > While I think that there might be some hyperbole in reaction to this Feature approval, this view of the Feature Approval Process is certainly not how I envisioned it when we initially implemented the Approval Process. FESCo reviews the Features in order to understand and point out how the changes will impact the distribution as a whole. Maintainers *are* better at understanding how their changes affect the code they work on but they aren't always better at seeing how their changes impact other people and the code that they maintain. (Note that if FESCo would rather not be doing that, it probably should be something that gets added to the Fixing Features page so it's an anti-goal of a any new features policy http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fixing_features ). -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpQFOAPimrHG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
