On 10/18/19 5:52 AM, Stasiek Michalski wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 9:10 PM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de> wrote:
Oh look, the magic packaging comittee (now termed "packaging team") makes an apperance again, of course half of them are not involved in the day-to-day process anymore. I think you are looking at a page which is both outdated, and has not seen application in a long time.
Does that invalidate the supposed process? Maybe not. But apparently the pro-remove equipe took it as such. As I have shown you before, the tooling was changed, the wiki page was not. Then the tooling was changed again, the wiki page was not (kind of making it accurate again). Then the crusade started and... needless to say, the wiki page was not updated even if, for a very tiny moment, we assume that the group removal was somehow legitimzed.
So please, look around in your SUSE office before throwing glass stones.
Then maybe this should be a suggestion to a board, can we somehow resolve the issue with teams consisting of people that do not do what is claimed on the wiki, especially for teams where guidelines dictate much of the work of the project. This could be done by electing a representative of a team, which would be responsible for organizing meetings a few times a year to discuss changes to the process and guidelines, as well as validate the team membership.
Well currently we have a process and it generally works, that is if you want to change the guidelines etc you create a proposal post it on this list and work to a consensus of **developers** in this case from the initial proposal Mid last year, it seems that the people who created the proposal considered that the only developers that objected at the time were Jan and the package hub team who they worked with to find a solution. Given that in a project this bug there will probably always be objections they decided that rightly or wrongly just one agreement was good enough for a consensus. They obviously didn't update the wiki guidelines at the time because the change would have triggered breakages in multiple tools such as Yast and rpmlint. So now having fixed those tools they feel it is time to change the guidelines as per there initial discussions last year. So I can see there view and how they consider this to be reasonable although more people have objected in the last days then when they did there first proposal and started the work. We already have adequate checks and balances here, its the review team's job to ensure that packages meet the guidelines. If a member of the review team is rejecting changes that do meet with the guidelines as discussed on this list / packaging then that is a matter for the board, likewise if guidelines are changed without first having a discussion here or if two groups can not decide on what the guidelines should be. 98% of the time the above policy works so i'm not sure that there is a real need to change it. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B