On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 08:25:46PM -0700, Matt McCutchen wrote:
I am aware of that. But FESCo has the authority to override the maintainer, and in their recent discussion of the SELinux patch, they decided not to move forward on the basis of the trademarks:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-08-03/fesco.2010-08-03...
Maybe the maintenance burden alone would also be enough to block further consideration of the patch, but there is no way to tell that from their discussion.
We have the authority to do that, and the decision you're referring to effectively *did* override the maintainer by saying that the selinux policy change should be reverted. If a package is generally well-maintained and then broken by a change introduced by another maintainer, there has to be a very strong argument to do anything other than revert the change that broke things in the first place.