Plan for tomorrows (20070517) FESCO meeting

[Brian Pepple]

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:56 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 10:31 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> >> All we're really trying to do is make good packages. We've tried
> >> really
> >> hard to make guidelines that lead to good, clean,
> >> maintainable-long-after-you-are-dead packages.
> >>
> > 
> > I hear what you are saying and I understand.  What I'm saying is that
> > there's a fine line between making good packages and going over the
> > edge.  So in your example, documenting is good.  But if you end up with
> > an exception process?  I think that probably crosses the line.  Dispute
> > resolution, maybe.  But I just worry that we're going somewhere we don't
> > want to be.  Not sure how to properly put this into words.
> 
> I'm totally in agreement that an exception process isn't somewhere we 
> want to go.  Arbitration when there's a dispute causes less impedance to 
> actually getting things done, while still achieving the same goals.

How would you suggest we deal with maintainers that outright say they
choose to ignore the packaging guidelines?

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

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-maintainers/attachments/20070517/2b2ac74d/attachment.sig>