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

Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at
Fri Feb 26 15:40:46 UTC 2010

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 
[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

More information about the devel mailing list