On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:14:33PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 05/10/2010 01:46 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > >> If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for > >> this meeting, please feel free to let us know. > > > > I'd like FPC to decide and clearly state their Official(tm) opinion on > > FESCo review of approved guidelines; it came up again in the thread-of-doom, > > with claims both that FPC-as-a-whole wanted FESCo to review, and that they > > *didn't* want FESCo review. > > Well, I want FESCo review. If the FPC disagrees with me and wants to > vote on it, I'd be happy to let them. I think the fact that things have > passed FPC, only to be reviewed by FESCo and found wanting (which then > went back to FPC for revision and eventual acceptance) means that the > procedure works, even if it is rare that FESCo find anything at issue > with the FPC proposals. > I'd like FESCo to have the right of appeal but not necessarily review. If I just link to my previous writeup, will other FPC members be good enough to read it? https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/358#comment:8 Basically, I think the current way that ratification by fesco works in practice delays guidelines getting put into effect and getting written up with little benefit. The actual times when FESCo points out problems are largely when the issue gets discussed on the mailing lists between the FPC meeting and the FESCo meeting. This could just as easly tie into the process where FESCo represents the packagers to the FPC to get a change in an established guideline as opposed to having a separate step where the guidelines must be explicitly ratified by FESCo. In our present process, fesco is supposedly reviewing the Guidelines between the time that the FPC passes them and the FESCo meeting but it's apparent that this seldom happens in practice. As noted in that ticket, it would make it easier to get FPC guidelines written up as the accountability for writing up passed guidelines could be handed out directly following the meeting rather than getting lost in the shuffle between FPC meeting - FESCo meeting - FPC meeting. The real benefit is probably to FESCo, though, as it clears out ten to fifteen minutes that they would no longer need to spend on it in meeting and however long the members actually do spend on reviewing the guidelines outside of the meeting as the current method of review is assuming they do. So if it's brought to a vote in FPC, I'll vote that FESCo stop explicitly having a review step and moves to just pushing things they notice as problems back to FPC. But I won't mind overly much if it doesn't win out there -- I'd be more concerned about it if I were on FESCo and had to try to add reviewing of the guidelines to the other things on the FESCo agenda. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgptCa050jw5L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
