[Fedora-packaging] kmdl voting results (was: Mail voting on kmdl adoption)

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 12:58:03PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I suggest to vote through email about replacing the current kernel
> scheme with the kmdl or similar scheme.
> 
> a) kernel module scheme needs uname-r-in-name
> 
> b) kernel module scheme needs one-specfile approach (for both usreland
>    and kernel modules)
> 
> c) kernel module scheme needs to be kernel agnostic (both version
>    *and* flavour)
> 
> d) support for coinstallation of kmdls should be pushed into FC6 asap
>    (working plugin has already been submitted here and tested be
>    ATrpms users). Requires a positive vote on a-c)
> 
> e) Adoption of kmdl interface scheme as used at ATrpms and outlined on
>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls. Requires a positive
>    vote on a-d)
> 
> f) Assignment to kmdl-task force to integrate kmdl support into the
>    buildsystems used by Fedora (myself volunteering). Requires a
>    positive vote on a-e)
> 
> g) Allow kmdl package submissions to Fedora Core/Extras. Requires a
>    positive vote on a-f)
> 
> Without voting, but dependent on vote results: Assist in GFS kmdl
> packaging (altready done at FC4 times, needs to resurface).

After a long and painful struggle this matter reached an end. The
voting result is that none of these passes. Also the voting
participation indicates that this is not a topic this committee is
interested in:

       http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AxelThimm/kmdls/voting

Almost half the members of this committee did not care to vote, some
did not even comment on this matter at all. This is a sad thing. Not
for the specific matter (which is sad, too), but because it was an
item one of us worked his ass off to fulfill all possible incoming
requests on documentation, explanation, use cases, examples, synopsis,
whatever, and the least one would expect would be to have more people
vote.

It's ugly to see my efforts being rejected, but being ignored is even
worse.
</whine>
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20060824/d4ca9ab1/attachment.bin