Contribution to Extras (an update)

[Michael Thomas]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 4/17/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs at math.uh.edu> wrote:
> 
>>Would you really want to?
> 
> 
> Me? probably not... but I'm trying to make sure the context of the
> additional guidelines is put in the proper perspective for the vocal
> opponents and those reading along.  I personally have no problem with 
> special interest groups applying additional "shoulds" which are well
> reasoned when choosing to spend their volunteer time to do reviews as
> long as there is a clear good faith effort to work with the package
> submitter to quickly work through the additional suggestions.
> 
> But the problem will come if the submitter doesn't agree with the
> additional requirements above and beyond the established general
> extras guidelines. I don't want reviews lingering in the FE-REVIEW
> state if non essential sig-only suggestions are the only outstanding
> issues which can't be agreed on. It should be made clear that in that
> case the game SIG members should put the review request back into the
> FE-NEW state so a non-sig member can then take the review assignment
> as time allows.  I don't think this is likely, but in those
> oh-so-special cases when a submitter has a bee in the bonnet of a
> particular game sig "suggestions" I'd rather the game SIG members bow
> out  of the review process quickly instead of waging a pitched battle
> in the review bugzilla.

+1

If the SIG wants new guidelines to be hard requirements then we should
go through the standard process of proposing changes to FESCo and
defending the requirements on f-e-l.  There should be one list of
packaging requirements that all packages must follow, and the various
SIGs can help contribute to that list based on common themes that they
see in their related packages.

--Mike

>>But hey, if you don't agree with the reviewer, I suppose you can
>>always ask for another one.  I'm sure you'll get one eventually.
> 
> 
> I garuntee you that at some point there will be honest disagreement
> between a submitter who finds the additional game specific
> "suggestions" burdensome, and I just want everyone to be clear as to
> the non-binding nature of the additional well-reasoned suggestions the
> game sig has.
> 
> -jef
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060417/bed0a12a/attachment.bin>