"Staying close to upstream"

[Matthew Garrett]

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.2010-08-03-19.30.log.html#l-66
> 
> 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.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org