On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:40:46 +0100
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
> The time period is mere speculation on your part.
It's not just mere speculation, the idea has been brought up by
nirik, citing EPEL as precedent:
[begin quote (from the meeting log)]
Feb 23 21:40:50 * nirik notes the maintainer also requested a
push to stable in epel, but the epel policy of 2 weeks in testing was
observed instead.
[snip not directly related discussion]
Feb 23 21:53:23 * nirik personally thinks the epel process has
been working nicely...
[snip not directly related discussion]
Feb 23 21:53:41 <skvidal> nirik: I think time-based is
probably a hang up - but....
[end quote]
Thanks for taking my quote out of context.
I was saying the EPEL policy seemed to be working well for EPEL.
That wasn't a "We should immediately do this now in fedora", but just a
datapoint.
Transparency means asking for feedback BEFORE writing the policy.
The
sooner you involve the community, the better. Putting out a policy as
"take it or leave it", or worse "take it, you have to, we voted it
through already" is not transparent.
Perhaps Matthew has been busy and unable to do this yet?
kevin