An alternate proposal to answer the guidelines question.
Brian Pepple
bpepple at fedoraproject.org
Thu May 17 18:43:13 UTC 2007
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 14:31 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
>
> In general, FESCO should appoint an arbitrator who a) isn't known to
> have problems dealing with either party, nor with the guys doing the
> guidelines, and b) doesn't have a specific vested interest in the
> package in question.
>
> Probably also they shouldn't be a FESCO member. If there's a serious
> conflict between people that's really getting out of hand, they and the
> board ultimately need to be the cooler heads that have to prevail.
+1.
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070517/b8898414/attachment.sig>
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list