Proposed udpates policy change

Gilboa Davara gilboad at
Wed Mar 10 21:56:04 UTC 2010

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> > about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> > here.
> Being qualified to do something does not mean that one always does it
> perfectly. Almost everyone's qualified to drive, yet road traffic
> accidents happen _all the time_. The people who built the LHC were no
> doubt qualified to do yet, yet it turns out to be a bit broken. You can
> pull examples from literally every sphere of human experience.
> People make mistakes - even qualified people, even super-proficient
> people who make far fewer mistakes than *most* people. This is why we do
> testing.

> You're behind the debate, in any case; Matthew's proposal was not
> accepted by FESCo at the meeting. No proposal was fully accepted, but
> FESCo asked everyone to go and work from Bill Nottingham's proposal
> (which, if you look at it, is far more moderate) for further review next
> week. But I thought it was important to make the general point. Being
> qualified to do something does not mean that you will always do it
> perfectly.

I just finished reading the fixed proposal (Or actually, I just finished
reading the full thread). Thanks for the head's up.

- Gilboa

More information about the devel mailing list