On 05.04.2007 12:02, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 11:55:31AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> I other words: FPC is no dumping ground for realizing something EPEL wants.
No, we will certainly resist that.
I would, too. ;-)
That was not what I was implying, you probably know that.
Then I'd say your example was quite bad.
The point is - once again - that the political
decision is not FPC's to make, but EPELs, don't push that away. The
engineering/implementation parts are FPC's to make.
It's a hand in hand process by both afaics.
> Axel, the best thing at this point of time afaics is not a
binding vote
> with the question "Should EPEL carry a repotag". A more simple
> questioning "Should we investigate further if we want to use a repotag
> and how it could be realize it if we want to" would be much better.
Aka postpone, work w/o a repotag and later noone wants to touch it
again. Aka effectivly vote against it, but pretend we care. Why didn't
you "investigate" when it was discussed? Everyone else including the
FPC did.
We need to finalize it and face it with a proper decision, no more
pushing away to FPC, future or any other place/time.
We just need someone to work out how the technical solution roughly
could look like before I'm willig to vote. Someone that wants repotag
should do that to get some "+1 for repotags" on his side afaics. You
seem to be interested in repotags and you are in both committees; you
look like the ideal candidate to do that to me. Propose a rough concept
how it could look like and you'll get a "abstrains" or maybe even a
"+1"
from me. Currently it's a 'don't want to vote at all; but if I'm forced
to vote now it's definitely a "no repotags"'. Is the latter what you
want?
CU
thl