[fab] JBJ considered harmfull
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Wed Aug 9 11:46:58 UTC 2006
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 22:43 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 13:10 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> > > This doesn't prevent him from leaving abusive comments in our bug reports.
> > > This is IMHO the bigger issue.
> >
> > My $0.02:
> >
> > Abusive comments in these particular bug reports, in the scheme of things,
> > is a non-issue. Or rather, a symptom of a larger issue. Namely:
> >
> > Who owns the upstream for RPM? And why are we avoiding this question like
> > the plague?
> >
> > Here's the fact: for years and years and years, RPM was maintained by a
> > Red Hat employee. In fact, RPM was called "Red Hat Package Manager" until
> > we decided to gift it to the world and change the name to the more
> > traditionally self-referential "RPM Package Manager."
> >
> > But that didn't change the fact that, for years and years, Red Hat was the
> > upstream. Not jbj -- Red Hat.
> >
> > When we fired jbj, we didn't have the courage to draw a line in the sand
> > and say "we're taking upstream ownership of RPM back." Why not? Because
> > we thought it would be difficult politically? Because we didn't want the
> > responsibility anymore? Because nobody in management actually cared
> > enough to think about the ramifications? I don't know.
> >
> > Fast forward a year plus, and here we are. We're in a position where we
> > have, essentially, forked RPM -- and no one is willing to admit it. No
> > one is willing to take ownership of what we've done.
> >
> > Perhaps jbj "owns" RPM, in its current incarnation, by default, because no
> > one else is willing to touch it. That's fine. He can have it. But that
> > is not what *we* are using.
> >
> > Here are the questions that we *must* answer. If internal engineering at
> > Red Hat is not willing to answer them, then the august body that is the
> > Fedora Board must at least take a position.
> >
> > 1. Who is the upstream provider of RPM? Is it rpm.org? jbj? Red Hat?
> > Fedora?
> >
> > 2. If we are not the upstream of RPM -- and I'd argue we're not -- is it
> > our intention to reunite with the RPM codebase at some point in the
> > future, or not?
> >
> > 3. If we are not going to rejoin with upstream RPM -- and I'd argue we're
> > not -- then we have, in fact, forked RPM. Therefore, what's the name of
> > the new project, who is the upstream (Red Hat? Fedora?) and how do we act
> > as an effective upstream for this project?
> >
> > We will continue to deal with these unpleasant issues until we have the
> > courage to resolve them.
> >
>
> I believe this is more or less what I said at the last fedora board
> meeting.
> Anyone else there feel free to correct me if I'm misremembering it.
You're not, this is what you said as I recall it.
> Paul Nasrat is willing to take over our fork of rpm and move forward. We
> just have to make sure he can make it a priority.
>
> Can we do that?
I wonder what we gain or lose by announcing the fork explicitly, if so.
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
-------------- 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-advisory-board/attachments/20060809/b75cdc5d/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list