some closure on the xorg updates issue

[Oisin Feeley]

On 8/11/06, Max Spevack <mspevack at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> As I tried to say in my initial email summarizing the Board's decision,
> there is a balance of issues and priorities here.  Making a decision that
> is completely to one side or the other -- and *in this instance only*
> placing a 100% weight on ideology and a 0% weight on potential user
> breakage -- that seemed like a poor choice.



This is my last email on this as I don't want to just be list-noise and this
has been discussed to death, but again I want to correct what you say
above.  To /me/ your description is a complete inversion which insists that
my user convenience (to get updates easily which includes bugfixes which
Xorg rolled in after the first modularised X.org) gets trumped by the user
convenience of others (they get to not have to continue jumping through
hoops to keep their broken hardware functioning).

So regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision, at least this
> was an example of the Fedora governance structure working the way that it
> is supposed to.


Agreed.  And I'm not trying to attack you personally.  I just think that the
imputation that "ideological" reasons cannot also be practical reasons is
incorrect.  I see this framing all over the place and it bugs the hell out
of me because I think it leads to ignoring the long-term practical
consequences of what seem like expedient decisions in the short-term.

Anyway, the decision has been made and the maintainer has spoken, so I'll
shut up and let everyone get back to producing an excellent distro.
Best wishes,
Oisin Feeley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20060811/a98c82fb/attachment.htm>