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

[Kevin Kofler]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> The time period is mere speculation on your part.

It's not just mere speculation, the idea has been brought up by nirik, 
citing EPEL as precedent:
[begin quote (from the meeting log)]
Feb 23 21:40:50 *	nirik notes the maintainer also requested a push to 
stable in epel, but the epel policy of 2 weeks in testing was observed 
instead.
[snip not directly related discussion]
Feb 23 21:53:23 *	nirik personally thinks the epel process has been 
working nicely...
[snip not directly related discussion]
Feb 23 21:53:41 <skvidal>	nirik: I think time-based is probably a hang 
up - but....
[end quote]

> 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)

That was my suggestion. All I got was negative comments (AIUI, nobody else 
wanted anything less than a majority of FESCo to be able to approve direct 
stable pushes, at least nobody said otherwise in the meeting), and even 
outright accusations of proposing ad personam rules:
[begin quote (from the meeting log)]
Feb 23 21:58:17 <notting>	Kevin_Kofler: of course you'd say 1 FESCo 
member, becuase from your statements, it sounds like you would intentionally 
sabotage the process and approve everything
[end quote]

> 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 dickhead.

Transparency means asking for feedback BEFORE writing the policy. The sooner 
you involve the community, the better. Putting out a policy as "take it or 
leave it", or worse "take it, you have to, we voted it through already" is 
not transparent.

        Kevin Kofler