rpmfusion review process (was: bug 31152 dropbox-repo)

Dear list, I have problems to understand the current review process. Long story short it seems that there might be an informal process which does not match the one documented in [1]. Since I don't understand this informal process I have problems how to handle the new package request [2]. With some more details: I have submitted the package and made a long and in my eyes tough review. I'm aware that this package is controversial, the very reason I submitted it was to clarify and find a way to handle external repos within rpmfusion. After a thread on the,mailing list and more than 50 comments the package was approved. My problem starts here. After a (delayed) cvssync request it turns out that Nicholas Chauvet requires me to do certain changes to actually perform the cvssync. He does so in what he describes as his capacity as "package coordinator". This is a problematic situation for me since some of the changes he requires me to do voids the review discussion. I also find it strange because in [1] there is no mention of any review activities once the package is approved. This is really about what to do when a review goes wrong (not saying this has). In Fedora we have a well-documented process how to bring such issues to the FPC or FESCO, but rpmfusion has seemingly no documented process how to overrule a reviewer's decision (?) Without a working steering group or similar instance these issues are hard to handle. In particular, it's hard for me and Nicholas to find an agreement since we have a different view of our roles. One solution could certainly be to appoint Nicholas or someone else to be the last resort to overrule reviews. Another would be to try to breathe some life into the steering group. We could of course also try to sweep it under the carpet. Whatever way we choose I think it should be explicit and documented, hence this mail. So: should we decide on some mechanism which is similar to FPC/FESCO also for rpmfusion? In the bug [2] there are some loose ends I would prefer not to discuss in this thread. One is if I have been disrespectful to Nicholas. I'm of course open to discuss also this, but then preferably in a separate thread (or in private). Another thing is what changes should be done to the package; this discussion belongs to the bug once the process is clarified. Cheers! --alec [1] http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Submitting_a_new_package [2] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152#c54