FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Feb 26 23:28:44 UTC 2010
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 16:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Transparency means asking for feedback BEFORE writing the policy. The sooner
I find this not to be the case. It's certainly a judgment call, not
something you can state as an absolute fact. I find it's better to
provide some shape to a discussion in the form of a draft proposal,
rather than just starting an entirely open-ended 'what should we do?'
discussion, which tends to rapidly devolve into apathy and bikeshedding.
Providing a document for discussion brings much more focus to a process.
> 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.
This is simply bad faith. I have seen absolutely no suggestion that the
policy would be put out in such a way, and I can't see any basis you
have to infer that. The suggestion that a draft version of the policy
would be provided for feedback is not at all the same thing as what you
wrote above. As long as the policy was properly adjusted (or abandoned)
based on the feedback it received, what objection do you have?
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the devel