FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

Josh Boyer jwboyer at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 13:31:32 UTC 2010

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on 
>wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in 
>Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside 
>feedback) is that Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wants to write down a precise 
>policy (which may end up even more restrictive, like some arbitrary minimum 
>time period of testing).

The time period is mere speculation on your part.

>He also noted that doing so "gives us an opportunity to discuss various 
>consequences with affected teams". But sadly, the people driving this 
>proposed change haven't used this opportunity to discuss this issue in a 
>transparent way as I would have expected (and I've been waiting for almost 3 
>days!), so I am doing it now. (We really need more transparency in decision 

Did you ever thing, maybe for a second, that people are busy and they view this
as important and _don't_ want to draft a half-assed policy with a bunch of
holes in it?

You've now opened this discussion with NO insight to what a proposed policy
would be.  You've left out parts that were discussed in the meeting as options
(like mechanisms to allow direct-to-stable pushes with FESCo/rel-eng/QA karma),
and you've generally painted this as "FESCo WANTS TO TELL YOU THAT THEY KNOW

Not only that, but you're undermining your fellow FESCo members and not even
waiting for the full policy to come out simply because you don't seem to think
any such policy could ever be suitable for you.  Great, if you don't agree with
it then vote against it.  But you should at least let those interested in having
a discussion on this come forward and present their OWN ideas/policies without
you already campaigning against it.

Transparency in process is great and I think it is extermely important.  What
you've done is not transparency.  What you've started is a smear campaign
against a draft policy that hasn't even been written yet.  Way to be a class-A


More information about the devel mailing list