Thoughts from last meeting

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 09:31:11 -0500
inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:

...snip...

> This is certainly easy to understand and my only concern is from the
> perspective of the EPEL consumer. If the Load Balancer Add-On were
> provided by EPEL and I jumped on that only to have the epel-go-between
> object 6 months later and have it pulled out from under me I would be
> an unhappy camper. It is OK to say that is my tough luck, but in cases
> like this I'd feel more confident using EPEL if the epel-go-between
> said it was OK to include Load Balancer Add-On before it was included
> rather than coming along later to say it isn't OK and yanking it.

So, you are suggesting an 'opt in' rather than 'opt out' ? 

ie, if we hear nothing we shouldn't conflict, but if we specifically
hear from them 'ok, we don't mind, it doesn't cause us any issues' we
should only then allow conflicts from that channel/product?

One other thing that comes in here... there's a bunch of fasttrack and
z-stream channels. Should any policy we draft address them as well?

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/attachments/20120529/d2ad1c10/attachment.sig>