Package Maintainers Flags policy

Josh Boyer jwboyer at
Wed May 20 11:27:52 UTC 2009

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:08:09AM +0200, Denis Leroy wrote:
> To summarize the votes:
> Dennis Gilmore: +1
> David Woodhouse: +1
> Bill Nottingham: +1
> Jon Stanley: +1
> Dan Horak: +1
> Kevin Fenzi: +1
> The logs include some pearls, like this one:
> nirik:ok. I'm unclear what problem this is solving off hand...
> jds2001: So reading this, it appears that this came from legal. I'm fine  
> with this policy.
> nirik: ok, if it's legal I'm fine with it...
> Nobody is even questioning whether the policy is worth the effort, since  
> people think this is mandated by Legal. No debate about the proposal  
> consequences and impact over Fedora packagers. No clear definition about  
> "there are some flags we can't ship to certain places" and what that  
> actually means technically. What, you're going to block download  
> requests coming from the PRC ? What about mirrors ? No debate about how  
> the RPM split has zero impact over this anyways, and how the  
> "substantively essential" clause bypasses this also. Not even an attempt  
> to identify the list of affected packages.
> Of those 6, only 2 commented on this thread, and only 1 admitted this  
> could have been communicated/handled better (and he gets my respect). I  
> can only fear the other 4 do not read this mailing list.
> Frankly, this is the worst FeSCo we have had in years, and I'd like  
> those people to resign immediately from FeSCo and early elections to  
> take place.

I suggest you run for FESCo instead.  While you may like for those 6 people to
resign, I doubt they will.  The election happens rather soon, so you have every
opportunity to become elected yourself.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list