On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:37:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 09:25 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 03:00 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > I would have thought, it should have actually convinced you to not
> > indulge in same thing but apparently not. I will lower my expectations.
>
> You don't seem to realise that right now you have a protest staged
> outside your office. Your response appears to be "all you stupid people
> go home and wait for a decision".
No-one's calling anyone stupid. What would you suggest would be better
than escalating the issue at the first available opportunity to the
appropriate authority - FESco - which is exactly what's happened? The
only alternative is for someone to abuse Red Hat chains of command to
force some kind of change in this policy, which is exactly the kind of
thing that should _not_ happen in Fedora. The current process appears to
precisely the correct one, so far as I can see. The issue will be
considered in very timely fashion by the appropriately-constituted (and
majority-elected!) authority, which will decide what the appropriate
response will be.
Those aren't the only alternatives. There's also the alternative of
the maintainers voluntarily making a change to accommodate feedback.
A situation where we have one part of the Fedora community giving
unwanted marching orders to the other parts of the Fedora community is
not an optimal result. (Where that's happened before on rare
occasions, it's never been a good thing.)
I'm not saying that FESCo shouldn't have purview over the issue, just
that you're really drawing a black and white picture where there's
clearly some in-between.
--
Paul W. Frields
http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - -
http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug