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 . Since I don't understand this informal
process I have problems how to handle the new package request .
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  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  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