Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 12:47:02PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>> [...] I also think that FESCo members shouldn't comment on >>> proposals unless they are technically au fait with them. This means >>> FESCo members taking some time each week to do technical work with the >>> projects. >>> >> I think this is coming at it wrong but then I haven't been involved with >> FESCo or the Feature process since it was first proposed and voted on. >> at that time we envisioned FESCo having the following reasons to review: > [.. feature stuff ..] >> The amount of technical knowledge needed for 1 and 2 is not large. For >> 3 there's some technical knowledge but also non-tecnhnical concerns like >> how much time the Feature owner has to devote to the process. #4 does >> require a technical evaluation. > > My point above maybe doesn't refer only to the feature process, but it > is important for the MinGW acceptance process. > > There have been all sorts of claims flying around about MinGW. From > my point of view, as an "expert" or at least as someone who has done a > lot of practical work packaging stuff for MinGW, those claims look ... > well ... detached from reality. > > So I'm convinced that if members of the 'Fedora hierarchy', FESCo, > board, etc., would actually take the time to do some work in MinGW > packaging, then at least they'd be speaking from a position of > knowledge. It needn't be a lot of technical work, but some would > help. > Looking at things the other way, a lot of the things that you claim are specific for MinGW whereas FESCo is designing something that applies to cross-compilation in general. So far, I've liked what danpb and dwmw2 have had to say on the issues.... Maybe they should be on the presidential ticket :-) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
