On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:31 PM Adam Williamson
<adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> I actually think the consequences of the revival of the old policy have
> been fine. We are throwing out tons of cruft. Occasionally we find
> something very crufty yet important: this is a *good* outcome of the
> process. It alerts us to the fact that important stuff depends on
> something which is not being properly maintained and allows us to
> address that.
>
I'm sympathetic to this argument, and I agree that it produces a
better output in a vaccuum. My concern is the effect that this has on
the community. We rely on the volunteer labor of a lot of people, and
I think that obligates us to make compromises. Package retirements are
easily reversible; packager retirements are less so.

Part of the problem is that the policy went unenforced for so long. I
wonder if we've started enforcement too quickly. Leaving some
loopholes in place—and acknowledging that some people will take
advantage of them—may be a way to keep the impact on packagers low for
now. Then perhaps some of the packager experience initiatives that are
in the works can have time to come in and make a more aggressive
enforcement palatable.


-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to