On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 16:24 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> > It's not actually something that is part of the Change's scope, >> > but an alternative way to try and achieve the same goal: the >> > overall thought process was "well, what the Change proposer really >> > wants is to reduce the likelihood of compromise via password >> > access to the root account, but no-one was particularly keen on >> > the approach he proposed, so one different way to do it is to >> > improve the strength of the root >> > password". As bcl's mail explicitly says: >> > >> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2015-January/msg00030.html >> >> That's not the point at all, which is, is it correct policy to >> activate a sub-change in a rejected change proposal? > > It's *not* a sub-change in a rejected change proposal. It wasn't part > of the rejected change proposal at all. That'd seem to make it less appropriate of a change. However, what I'm drawing on from that proposal is: Scope Proposal owners: to communicate with the Fedora maintainers of packages: Anaconda, OpenSSH, GNOME, etc. Other developers: packages like Anaconda, GNOME etc. need to update their workflow to enable compulsory non-root user account creation and ensure good password strength for it. > >> And is it prudent to dig heels in when there's been more negative >> feedback on that change presented on anaconda-devel@ and test@ than >> positive? I can't even find positive feedback except from the >> original change owner. > > Um. Take a step back, relax, and look at the timeframe here. > > bcl mailed the list *yesterday*. He hasn't posted back to the thread > since. You should give someone a hell of a lot more than one day > before you start talking about 'digging heels in'. Um, you realize that correcthorse is disqualified even though it's more than 8 characters, right? > >> I was thinking of this one >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Definitions > > that whole thing is obsolete, the Change process replaced the Feature > process. Nothing with 'Feature' in its URL is current any more. Is there a bit recycling program? -- Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
