On 06. 01. 20 12:44, Peter Robinson wrote:
As said in the e-mail, if you think the policy needs to be adapted, please
discuss - I have made sure the recent changes in the policy are discussed with
the community, especially since you were so angry when I followed the previous
one. Unfortunately, there was no input from you when the policy was discussed,
despite me repeatedly asking you to stop being angry at me and participate in
the policy discussion instead.
What recent discussions, I've not actually looked at a lot of Fedora
related stuff much since August because of constant travel and things
related directly to my $dayjob so I likely missed any of the
discussion if it's happened since then.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/NKFYAWL4GWYR37C6XA63JMNBZYEM6BI3/
Angry, I wasn't angry, annoyed certainly. It does annoy me that we're
driving away packagers that have a little time here and there with
these policies, I feel we have too few contributors already and
aggressive policies and enforcement only make it worse.
That's exactly why I want the policies less aggressive. A year + long FTBFS
isn't aggressive in my POV.
Regardless of different opinions about aggressiveness, having policies and no
enforcement makes no sense. Either the polices are too aggressive and we need to
change them, or they are not and we need to enforce them. What you seem to ask
is to stop enforcing policies, and I must disagree with that.
Note that IMHO it's mostly Red Hat employees that are "forced" to fix their
packages by enforcing the polcies, not community members. The community
packagers either care about their packages and they fix them in timely manner,
or they are already gone. But I have no data to back this up, so feel free to
disagree there.
Also said in the e-mail, if you think those packages need to be exempted from
the process, we can deal with that to, however there must be a valid reason. I
don't think "the maintainer didn't actually maintain their Fedora packages for
almost 2 years because they have real stuff to do" is a valid reason, yet other
FESCo members might disagree with that statement.
Well the FTB from people pushing builds would be directly due to the
fact they're not on the ACL for the secure-boot, there is a handful of
packages like that.
So the people who has the rights should start actually doing it, shouldn't they.
This particular maintainer ignores all bugzilla e-mail.
Well FESCo might agree that they want booting x86 images with
secure-boot so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, let's build our policies around that. What about the following:
"If you maintain a critpath package, you don't need to to do anything, because
it will never be removed so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
