Am Samstag, den 18.02.2006, 23:10 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: > Le samedi 18 février 2006 à 15:45 -0500, Warren Togami a écrit : > > > > 3. we should let FEL define its own policies. Today we don't know the > > > number of people interested in FEL and their level of involvement. It's > > > useless to dictate rules to a team which is not assembled yet. People > > > who want to do it should first go to 1. and create some form of entity > > > > > > > I think it is entirely broken to "hand over" the entire Extras and > > expect some other volunteer to take care of it. This will create a > > guaranteed failure situation for a community group because the set of > > packages is potentially infinite and the natural problem that security > > is difficult to maintain with only volunteers (even Debian struggles). > > It is a *fantasy* for maintainers to expect they hand over > > responsibility to some theoretical entity and expect it to actually work. > > The fantasy is to continue not acknowledging the problem. I'm very > sceptical about the viability of a FEL. I write so openly. If we create > one it will suck the first releases just like it did for FCL (and this > is the optimistic scenario). [...] And then we have the same problem that Fedora Legacy currently has taken to Fedora Extras (Legacy) -- it works, but it has a bad (or "not the best") reputation because it sucked in the beginning. Do we want that? I would prefer a EOL call over a badly working Fedora Extras Legacy. CU thl -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
