On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:31 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I actually think the consequences of the revival of the old policy have > been fine. We are throwing out tons of cruft. Occasionally we find > something very crufty yet important: this is a *good* outcome of the > process. It alerts us to the fact that important stuff depends on > something which is not being properly maintained and allows us to > address that. > I'm sympathetic to this argument, and I agree that it produces a better output in a vaccuum. My concern is the effect that this has on the community. We rely on the volunteer labor of a lot of people, and I think that obligates us to make compromises. Package retirements are easily reversible; packager retirements are less so. Part of the problem is that the policy went unenforced for so long. I wonder if we've started enforcement too quickly. Leaving some loopholes in place—and acknowledging that some people will take advantage of them—may be a way to keep the impact on packagers low for now. Then perhaps some of the packager experience initiatives that are in the works can have time to come in and make a more aggressive enforcement palatable. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
