On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 08:21:24PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > > > I'm no developer (not since the 6502 ASM days at any rate), but it seems > > to me that this may cause some contention. I hate bureaucracy in all > > it's forms, but I can see I slightly modified version of this being put > > into use, PROVIDED the majority of developers concerned (ie., at least > > 70%) agree to be bound by such rules. Otherwise, you risk losing alot of > > people. > > Indeed. It seems like a stick to hit a stressed developer with - and > surely developers under external stresses, who do not maintain Fedora > packages as their day, job will be the ones most likely to have this > stick waved at them. That's not what my experience is. Bug with fix not acted upon is almost always by people @ redhat. But I really don't want to start a flamewar about who are the good and the bad guys I want a policy for bug with fixes. > Their re-action may not be the one they or you > want in the short and long term. It is obvious that it is not a policy to make maintainers happy. It is here to make those who report bug with fixes and users happy. > I don't have a good counter-proposal, except to suggest that these > requests be handled as a HR, not a computer science process, and with > the greatest of tact. A policy helps not having to need tact. There is a standard template and the one who enforce the policy is not responsible of it, FESCo is. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
