On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 15:58 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:37:55AM -0700, Pete Travis wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2015 6:57 AM, "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I wanted to resurface the third party repository topic before we
> > get to next week's meeting. Currently we have the following
> > page drafted that discusses the new disabled repo feature
> > currently in Fedora 22 Workstation:
> >
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/3rdPartyApps
> >
> > Currently there's a policy from the Council (nee Board) on third
> > party repos here:
> >
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy
> >
> > This policy doesn't address one of the problems I believe we're
> > trying to solve in software -- making developer access to non-
> > libre (but legally OK) tools on Fedora less convoluted and
> > burdensome.
> >
> > So there's not just the question of implementation and curation,
> > but also getting a policy change approved by the Council.
> >
> This would make more sense to me as a Change proposal, with all
> the process
> and publicity that comes with that. A change in Fedora like this
> is much
> greater than the actual implementation details; treating it like a
> minor gnome-software feature add isn't representative of the
> impact on the project.
Except the Change process is focused on sorting out changes that
make more than the owner do work to integrate, vs. those that don't.
I think calling this a Change actually demote this to a purely
technical decision, and I don't want to see it treated that way. So
I think your suggestion achieves the opposite of what you intend.
Paul, you're describing a System-Wide Change there. What Pete is
describing is a Self-Contained Change, and this is exactly what those
sort of Changes are meant to account for.