On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 01:15:58PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 11:59:56AM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Doesn't the threads on fedora-usrmgmt look like a massive yelling?
> I'm sure if it comes to a vote the majority is against the
> imported fedora-usermgmt stuff.
It is not a valid argument. Having a vote won't cut technical discussion
threads.
No, by all means, go on discussing until forever. We do need to come
to an end, though. And that's why I see it beneficial, if EPEL decides
to ban this until Fedora-land resolves it after the discussion comes
to an "end".
> That's not a battle-voting, it's just a conventional
vote.
It is battle voting. There is no consensus on this issue.
If there were consensus then there would *never* be a need for voting
(and that doesn't only apply to EPEL), right?
> Every sig member, there is not more chaos than discussing things
w/o
> ever voting. Voting will *reduce* chaos.
If you refer to the fedora-usermgmt threads voting won't be sufficient.
Hopefully a vote won't stop people discussing.
This is not about censorship, feel free to discuss until forever, I
just want to see it resolved, there is now a thorn twisted in EPEL's
side, and whatever the result of a vote would be it would at least
bring peace to my trouble mind. I'm sure others would like to see this
ending, too.
> A steeringless project is inevitably following Brown's law
rather than
> being productive. I certainly feel less than productive with the
> usermgmt stuff taking so much of my epel time.
A steering commitee won't help cutting discussions. Or do you want that?
We are not censoring anyone, but we need to take actions, too.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net