On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 02:30 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> <humor, with a serious undertone> > >> > >> Since those making packaging guidelines and other rules seem to be out > >> of touch with the workfloor these days I would like to propose the > >> following guideline for rulemakers: > >> > >> Those making guidelines / rules within the Fedora project must > >> actively maintain atleast 30 packages. > >> > >> Rationale: How can one make rules if one isn't involved in that which > >> is regulated oneself? > >> > >> </humor> > > > > Packaging guidelines also cover licensing details which isn't connected > > to workflow. There are several other policies within the guidelines > > which involve some amount of politics (kernel modules anyone?). This > > rule would mean that everybody who proposes any drafts, folks in the > > packaging committee and FESCo would have to maintain 30 packages. > > > > Yes it would, and that would be a good thing! Let the people building the > distro decide how it is build! As for licensing issues, since RH is paying > mosts of the bills at the end RH decided what is okay licensing wise, and to me > they have earned that right, because "paying the bills" == "building the distro" I don't want to misinterpret what you're saying here, so I'll ask you straight out. Are you suggesting that because I do not maintain 30 packages I am unqualified to be a member of FESCo? Should I go out and submit about 20 more packages that I'll never use myself just to inflate my statistics and make myself eligible? I could counter your proposal with "only people who have managed x distro releases can be in FESCo". Or "only people who have written test cases for 30 packages can be in FESCo". Or "only people who have debugged problems on all architectures can be in FESCo". Or "only people who have translated for 30 packages can be in FESCo". Seriously, I understand where you are coming from but your blanket qualification is lacking. There is more to making Fedora than maintaining a number of packages. To suggest others are unqualified because they do not maintain a large number of packages is both naive and insulting. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
