Fedora User Management (revisited)

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 09:02:10AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 15:53 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > On 06.03.2007 15:36, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 08:28:48AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > >> We've been discussing Fedora User Management in EPEL.  I propose a vote, 
> > >> all maintainers are welcome to vote.  The outcome is FINAL.  If we chose 
> > > A vote isn't the way to go in my opinion. The number of people is not 
> > > relevant when it comes to technical issues.
> > 
> > Agreed -- it's important that the people that make the decision know the 
> > pros and cons of the different proposed solutions. That's IMHO often not 
> > the case for complicated technical issues like this if the group that is 
> > voting is big.
> > 
> > > Collecting people thoughts
> > > on that matter would be interesting though, but I think having FESCo 
> > > or FPC choose would be better.
> > 
> > +1 -- they finally have to ratify the solution anyway. But the issue 
> > nevertheless can and of course should get discussed in public.
> 
> I'd want to know the outcome of an EPEL SIG vote before trying to decide
> anything on this.  That's what SIGs are for.

The EPEL seems to be mostly against this tool, but doesn't vote
because it considers it a Fedora issue that needs to be resolved in
Fedora land.

So waiting for a vote from the EPEL sig while this is waiting for this
vote may look like a dead-lock. ;)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070306/e5bcb0e2/attachment.sig>