The mail is back ! Re: RPMfusion governance (Was: Kodi)

[Sérgio Basto]

Forgot to tell you in this moment our focus is in packages for F24 ,
not for F23 , neither rawhide ... 

On Qui, 2016-06-23 at 02:10 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi, 
> First alleluia ! the mail is back in business, so we can chat again.
> (I
> have about 176 message to read ! )
> 
> Please understand (Alec and Michael) the platform and new infra was
> raised with a lot effort of kwizart. One the most difficult things
> (for
> me) is deal with communication many people use RPMFusion but not many
> participate when things stopped everyone came and ask the same
> questions. I realize that is much more practical do an wiki page or a
> page in ask Fedora, that try reply to all people, so it is hard deal
> with all communications and communicate in general, specially if we
> do
> not know exactly what it will happen. 
> Another problem is we can't stop, every day we have new updates for
> something, but was made the decision of do a new infra, instead use
> the
> very obsolete one (the latest release of psp pages [1] was on 2001,
> for
> example) so we should be happy ! 
> 
> Michael sorry for not commit kodi-16.1 , I hadn't time , I also have
> much less free time than some months ago, but now you can commit
> again
> ! 
> 
> Anyway the things aren't even close to be finished, with pkgdb we
> could
> read the owners of the project [2], which give you ability for commit
> ,
> but many other things in pkgdb aren't working ... , so please have a
> break on us (I can't find the correct translation) . 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> [1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/psp/
> 
> [2] https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/package/free/kodi/
> 
> 
> On Qui, 2016-06-23 at 00:23 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 22/06/16 23:40, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Can you please explain a little more your point of view ? and
> > > what
> > > did
> > > you expect ?
> > Basically, two things. The first is some decency -  this does not 
> > include being called an idiot on the list by you.
> > 
> > The second is some transparency in how this repo is run. The docs
> > still 
> > describes a steering committee and packages being approved by
> > reviewers 
> > (and that's basically it). But in the end you overturn any decision
> > you 
> > feel that you need to (and the committee doesn't exist).
> > 
> > Which is perfectly fine, it's your show. But ít should really be 
> > communicated so that contributors knows the rules.
> > 
> > RPMfusion is an important repo, and I wish you luck. And hopefully
> > new 
> > contributors.
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers!
> > 
> > -alec
-- 
Sérgio M. B.