On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 12:48:21AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Don't blame Miro for doing the necessary things, just because you don't > > like the process. > > The issue is that I do not agree that this process is necessary to begin > with. > > > We have asked you multiple times to suggest a policy that works for you > > too, but you haven't done that, > > I have. The policy that I have suggested is to just do nothing. FTBFS by > itself has no impact whatsoever on end users. Only if the package actually > does not install and/or run, it is appropriate to file a bug, and if that > bug is not acted upon and cannot be easily fixed by a provenpackager due to > the FTBFS, to initiate the (existing) non-responsive maintainer policy. Fine. You have created a proposal now. The idea of doing nothing has been discussed, and rejected. A bunch of various processes has been discussed, one of them accepted by FESCo. Despite many different opinions about the best procedure, one thing that everybody seemed to agree on was that *something* needs to be done. So yeah, the idea of doing *nothing* was rejected by the tech governance body of Fedora, duly elected according to our rules. You keep saying stuff like "Miro's crackdown", as if it was one person's whim to do this. It is not. It is the official Fedora policy, see previous paragraph. And yes, this comes very close to being an attack on the person. If you don't like the policy, convince enough community members to vote differently and change the policy. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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
