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

[Alec Leamas]

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