On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 08:44:07AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > An unbundling triangle: > > > inclination > > /\ > / \ > / \ > / all \ > A / three→ \ B > / ideal \ > / unbundled \ > / package \ > / \ > /__________________\ > > availablity expertise > > C > > > A: Inclination + availability, short on expertise: > > *Ideally*, this the packager learns quickly and moves to the > center of the triangle, at least for this package. More > likely, frustration reduces motivation and the package just > gets dropped. Other times, a "okay, this works" job is done, > but there may be bugs, including potential security issues, > and even in better cases, the package becomes a special case, > harder to maintain, forever. > > B: Inclination + expertise, but not available: > > Any ideas to create more time or more people are welcome, and > I don't mean that in a snarky way. My thinking is that we're > better off having the people who really care about this > problem work on tooling and automation which will do a better > job than the "get over the initial high wall" process we have > now, by being more thorough and by also applying _after_ > initial packager review. > > C: Availability + expertise, but no inclination: > > The problem is: we can't *make* people have this inclination. > Fedora just plain doesn't have that weight. I wish we did, but > it's *clearly* not so. The only outcome of a hard line on this > is less relevance for us. That's why I'm in favor of a softer > line, and approaches which educate and encourage rather than > demand.
There was a middle ground there that could have been pursued a little more: the sandbock repo which less strict guidelines keeping the current Fedora repo with the current policies. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
