Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at
Thu Oct 8 23:17:35 UTC 2015

Haïkel wrote:
> Not that I'm 100% happy with the way it happened but this has been a
> very long-lived topic. To some, it'll be a hasty decision, to others,
> it's already a late one.

There's a REASON it had always been shot down so far!

> Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a perfect
> solution, and we''ll gladly review any proposals to improve this
> policy.

It is not possible to "improve" a policy that is fundamentally broken. The 
only possible improvement is to repeal/revert it.

> But we can keep discussing this for years, or try to solve this issue
> incrementally.

Or we can just keep saying no, in compliance with our principles.

> We chose the latter.

What is "incremental" about this policy change? It is a radical U-turn.

> No we didn't chose quantity over quality, it will only have a marginal
> impact on the former.

Then it will even have failed its stated purpose.

> It doesn't prevent you to do unbundling

It does. The maintainer can now say "no" to any non-upstream unbundling.

> Pretending that the now-previous guidelines that many packages
> (including recent ones) did not respect were preventing issues was
> giving a false impression of security, that was *harmful*.

If existing packages were not compliant to the policy, that's the problem 
you need to fix, by:
1. fixing the packages (not just threatening their removal from Fedora, but
   actually having a provenpackager go in and do the downstream unbundling),
2. for blatant or repeat offenses, unsponsoring both the submitters and the
   reviewers of the offending packages.

> You're free to rant or work with us to improve the now-current policy.

See above, the policy cannot be "improved" because it is fundamentally 
flawed and the exact opposite of what the policy should be.

        Kevin Kofler

More information about the devel mailing list