On Monday 30 June 2008 05:10, Sarah Hobbs wrote: > I've got more thoughts on all this, but can't document them tonight. > However: > > Cesare Tirabassi wrote: > > So, I'd propose a +2 in a (insert a reasonable amount of time here, 2 > > days since the date a _valid_ request was filed seems reasonable to me) ? > > The obvious drawback is that no FFe can be approved before the 2 days > > elapse, in my view a reasonable price to pay. > > We can do better than this - why not use your proposal, or if it has a > +3 vote, it can go through immediately? 2 or 3 days sounds a pretty > sane time to me. That gives us the advantages of both situations.
I dislike complexity that is not neeeded. I don't think we need this. > > An alternative would be to have a veto system, in which any member can > > stop the regular process by simply objecting (obviously with reasonable > > arguments) against the FFe. In this case the FFe will not be approved > > until the required majority is obtained. > > I hesitate over this - having worked with the KDE side for a while, i'm > aware that some of the non-KDE-ers would veto changes based on size, but > not understand the way KDE works, in terms of upstream testing, etc, and > would veto, on principle. Yet others, who do understand the testing > procedure, etc, that has gone on, and think it's fine. If I recall > correctly, we certainly had some kde4 universe packages where this was > the case, too. The only issue I recall was some lack of clarity over which exact packages were covered under the KDE4 blanked FFe waiver. I think having the blanket waivers documented this time was a big help. > I'd hate to see a 'valid' FFe be declined, because someone didn't > understand the upstream procedures (which is likely, based on how many > there are), and made a judgment not taking all the relevant factors into > account, as they didn't know about them. I don't think we had a problem with this. The only FFe I know of that got stopped that shouldn't due to a veto was mine of mailscanner. After I withdrew my veto, no one would ack it. > Note that I'm not saying that they should all know everything - because > I'm not - just that we need to make sure that their incorrect decision > shouldn't act as a sledgehammer. OTOH, I feel I should have stood firm on my objections to envy-ng. In that case I should have used a sledgehammer and insisted it get fixed to be secure before it was uploaded. I'd like to have that sledgehammer for the future should I need it. I think not vetoing when we should or withdrawing the veto when we shouldn't due to outside pressure was a bigger problem in Hardy. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
