Policy proposal for compatibility packages

[Brian Pepple]

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 00:36 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 06:32:03PM -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 23:53 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > Anybody can already raise his concerns about a compat package, why more
> > > procedures and such a veto power for a particular packager?
> > 
> > For the reasons spelled out in the proposal: 'The reasoning for the
> > latter is that even if the primary maintainer is not maintaining the
> > compatibility package, chances are that they will have to be involved in
> > the maintenance due to passing along security problems, helping out with
> > things and redirecting misfiled bugs.'
> 
> If a particular maintainer has those concerns he can raise them without
> having this veto power. This makes an unneeded assymetry between a
> primary maintainer and somebody who would like to do a compat package.
> There is no reason why a primary maintainer would be smarter than
> somebody wanting a compat package.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point, since I
feel pretty strongly that the primary maintainer should have a voice in
this process since it could affect their workload.

Regardless, as the proposal states, if the compat maintainer and the
primary maintainer cannot come to a mutual decision, it can be escalated
to FESCo to make the final decision.

Later,
/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
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-devel-list/attachments/20080102/6d23e0fa/attachment.sig>