Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)
leamas.alec at gmail.com
Sat Oct 10 08:45:46 UTC 2015
On 09/10/15 21:13, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you here. However, the
> unfortunate fact of life is that we can lead a horse to water but
> cannot make them drink. Our previous policy was essentially holding
> the horse's head under the water until it drained the pond or drowned
> in it. I feel we can do better by being more moderate. The Unbundling
> SIG mentioned elsewhere in this thread is probably a more productive
First, I generally agree that leaving the final decision to the packager
under the kind of umbrella proposed is the right thing to do.
That said, question is if we are leading the horse to the water? IMHO,
the proposed rules is more like pointing out the general direction to
the water for the poor horse (that's me, a mere mortal packager).
Perhaps Kevin K has a point in that these rules doesn't even require a
motivation from the packager when bundling. What if we required some
kind of process, still leaving the final decision to the packager? E.
g., requiring that all bundling should be at least reported to the FPC,
with a revised set of standard questions dealt with? Perhaps requiring
that FPC (or some other body) should be given the chance to give some
piece of advice before the bundled package is committed?
Whatever. But if we take bundling seriously, why not require some kind
of process? Not so complicated that it's simply avoided (as often
today), but still something which makes a packager think twice?
PS Sorry for not being able to match Stephens horse-drowning metaphor :) DS
More information about the devel