Re: XULRunner - will be or won't be?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Christopher Aillon wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Christopher Aillon wrote:

That makes no sense. Are you seriously telling me that you ratify changes that may be sub-par with the intent that they can be changed?

No but policies can be ratified with the understanding that they are not written in stone.

Sounds like you need to revise your ratification process (or lack thereof) before people should feel comfortable following anything that gets "voted" on.

That's a FESCo decision that I am not involved with.

I wonder if I'm the only person that got the impression you were invovled with it based on your comments. Don't try to strongarm people into following _draft_ policies based on the fact that you personally _expect_ it to be ratified.

I am not personally involved with it. The policy is mostly documenting the process that we have followed even in the previous release so I do expect maintainers to take an effort to describe what the plans are.

Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux