>>>>> "MM" == Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: MM> I think it's because overriding a different group seems hostile, MM> even if it isn't meant that way. And FESCo doesn't want to feel like MM> they're second-guessing other groups all the time. Well, FPC even has a "bounce to FESCo clause" in the rules we follow. Every decision used to go through FESCo, but the latter decided it was a bit too much overhead. I don't really blame them. In any case, the FESCo/FPC interaction (which I know predates the involvement of many people) was designed with this check in mind. It isn't hostile (though I'm sure some will see it that way no matter what happens). MM> But, if FESCo and FPC want to (more, I guess) explicitly spell out MM> that FPC takes a purist approach and that it's FESCo's place to make MM> exceptions when they serve greater Fedora goals, maybe that could MM> work? That's how it started and how at least FPC has pretty much always operated. Of course, FPC does understand that you can't do everything and does grant exemptions when they make sense to FPC. It's just that what makes sense to FPC (or at least, whatever consensus arises out of FPC discussion) might not make sense to FESCo or to the folks who just want something without worrying about FPC's restrictions. - J< -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
