As I tried to say in my initial email summarizing the Board's decision,
there is a balance of issues and priorities here. Making a decision that
is completely to one side or the other -- and *in this instance only*
placing a 100% weight on ideology and a 0% weight on potential user
breakage -- that seemed like a poor choice.
This is my last email on this as I don't want to just be list-noise and this has been discussed to death, but again I want to correct what you say above. To /me/ your description is a complete inversion which insists that my user convenience (to get updates easily which includes bugfixes which Xorg rolled in after the first modularised X.org) gets trumped by the user convenience of others (they get to not have to continue jumping through hoops to keep their broken hardware functioning).
So regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, at least this
was an example of the Fedora governance structure working the way that it
is supposed to.
Agreed. And I'm not trying to attack you personally. I just think that the imputation that "ideological" reasons cannot also be practical reasons is incorrect. I see this framing all over the place and it bugs the hell out of me because I think it leads to ignoring the long-term practical consequences of what seem like expedient decisions in the short-term.
Anyway, the decision has been made and the maintainer has spoken, so I'll shut up and let everyone get back to producing an excellent distro.
Best wishes,
Oisin Feeley
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
