"Staying close to upstream"

[Jon Ciesla]

  On 08/13/2010 01:10 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> The  FireFox  maintainer  might  well  be  viewed as best qualified to
>> determine  which  (if  any) distribution-specific patches they want to
>> support  over  the life of the package.   If you say no, then put that
>> maintainer in a "FireFox SIG" and repeat the question.
> 1. It doesn't make sense to have a SIG for a single package, a SIG needs to
> be for a set of packages. For example, the Perl SIG is not for just the perl
> package, but for most perl-* (and IMHO should be responsible for ALL perl-*
> packages).
> 2. Even packages primarily maintained by one SIG can be subject to decisions
> by other SIGs. E.g. I fully accept that the Games SIG should have its say
> over kdegames as long as they don't step into KDE territory (e.g. requiring
> us to change the BR kdelibs4-devel to a BR kdelibs-devel>= 6:4.0 would be
> unacceptable), that the SIGs for interpreted languages should have some
> control over their respective subpackages of kdebindings (and in fact we
> already try hard to follow their language-specific packaging guidelines
> there; if we don't, it's a bug) etc. My position is not "the KDE SIG should
> rule everything", it's "SIGs must be given authority over their subject
> matter, even if it means overruling individual maintainers or even, in the
> worst case, other SIGs, in order to allow for a consistent experience across
> the distribution".
>
>> FESCo  might  well  be viewed as best to deal with policies related to
>> updates  across  _all_ Fedora SIGs and releases, since that one of the
>> tasks they were _ELECTED_ to perform.
> FESCo is a too central body and the election process is broken in many ways
> (very low turnaround, too few and not sufficiently diverse candidates etc.).
>
So if I say, "Great, if that's what you want to do, run for FESCO", I 
know what your answer is. :)
>> Seems  you think best is one way in one case, and the other way in the
>> other  case.   It is this inconsistency that folks are trying to bring
>> to your attention.
> This perceived "inconsistency" just comes out of misunderstandings.
>
> There is a middle ground between an authoritarian central authority and
> anarchic "I refuse to apply the patches you need because of XYZ" attitudes.
> SIGs are the right granularity for management.
>
Ok, but it would seem that the community (as expressed via FESCO) would 
disagree.  If you can campaign and get enough people who agree elected, 
then there you go.  I'm not saying FESCO or it's election processes are 
infallible, but if you want the system changed to fit what you think it 
should be, then why can't the system be changed to what *I* think it 
should be?
> Usually, and by default, the maintainer should be trusted. Where integration
> across packages is relevant (and that's exactly the case for those KDE
> _integration_ patches!), that's a matter for the SIGs (who should be allowed
> to overrule individual maintainers). Our central governing bodies are just
> bureaucratic overhead.
>
Well, shoot, so is the police force and the court system, but you still 
have to abide by the speed limit until you can get your representatives 
to change it, either by petitioning them or by becoming them.   You 
either work within the system (in Fedora and in Democracy, via 
elections) or you replace the system (fork the distro, or start a 
revolution).  In replacing the system, however, it's good to have 
numerical superiority.  Democracies circumvent revolution by having 
elections and so whenever you have a large enough group to violently 
overthrow the government, they start winning elections and become the 
government.

-J
>          Kevin Kofler
>


-- 
- in your fear, speak only peace
   in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie