On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 00:36 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 06:32:03PM -0500, Brian Pepple wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 23:53 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > Anybody can already raise his concerns about a compat package, why more > > > procedures and such a veto power for a particular packager? > > > > For the reasons spelled out in the proposal: 'The reasoning for the > > latter is that even if the primary maintainer is not maintaining the > > compatibility package, chances are that they will have to be involved in > > the maintenance due to passing along security problems, helping out with > > things and redirecting misfiled bugs.' > > If a particular maintainer has those concerns he can raise them without > having this veto power. This makes an unneeded assymetry between a > primary maintainer and somebody who would like to do a compat package. > There is no reason why a primary maintainer would be smarter than > somebody wanting a compat package. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point, since I feel pretty strongly that the primary maintainer should have a voice in this process since it could affect their workload. Regardless, as the proposal states, if the compat maintainer and the primary maintainer cannot come to a mutual decision, it can be escalated to FESCo to make the final decision. Later, /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
