Policy proposal for compatibility packages

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 00:55:17 +0100
Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 06:52:26PM -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
> > > 
> > > 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.
> 
> So this is not needed to 
> * add yet more rules
> * show a preference for the primary maintainer 
> since the same rules as always can simply apply.

Entirely too large of a deal is being made on this "veto" power.  It's
not really a "veto", as they have no mechanism to enforce it anyway.
The proposal doesn't even have the word "veto" in it.

Just change this:

"...and the primary package maintainer is not against the idea."

to this:

"...and there are no objections from the primary packager (or any
other packager knowledgeable about the package)."

and it's fine.  Escalations all go to FESCo, regardless.

You are both saying the same thing, just with different flavors.
Realize this, and move on.

josh