On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:23:08PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:09:12PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: >> * the decision was made by people who obviously did not read the >> feature page and have no interest in the feature. If somebody >> has not read the page he should not speak up on that topic or >> decide about it, and if he has further question he should ask. > >Fully agreed with you on this point. If FESCo members would volunteer >to package up even some tiny MinGW package[1], then I think the >standard of debate on the MinGW issue would be hugely improved. If FESCo has to go and be an intimate part of a Feature in order for it to get approved or discussed, then that is what I would consider to be a very large failure. Reality dictates that the 9 people in FESCo do not have infinite time to do explicit things with every single Feature that gets presented. FESCo is a steering committee. We rely on you, the developers, to do your part for Features. It's the Feature owners responsibility to present clear and concise information on the Feature. You did that rather well for MinGW. Debate on things will naturally happen. You also did a good job participating there. I believe I can honestly say that you were the most active Feature owner for this release in making sure your Feature was understood and completed. And I'd like to point out that LXDE (and Haskell, and others) were _approved_ for F10. They were dropped later for nothing more than lack of following the Feature process. Not out of spite, or lack of interest, or some evil desire to promote only things that some Cabal cares about. josh (Btw, to your specific point, I cross compile packages all the time. A large majority of the discussion was generated by me. So I don't think your axiom holds true at all.) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
