Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

[Robert Lunnon]

On Monday 25 September 2006 04:36, Robert Shearman wrote:
> Robert Lunnon wrote:
> > 2. Adapt the patch acceptance process to create a right of appeal where a
> > patch can be proven to be within the Patch Acceptance policy. Appeal
> > should be independent of and binding on Alexandre - this eliminates
> > one-to-one arguments about patch acceptability while still providing good
> > excellent control.  It will also have the effect of reducing Alexandres
> > workload.
>
> I think this process would be completely redundant, so can you give an
> example of the patches that would meet the "Patch Acceptance policy" but
> have been rejected by Alexandre?

I could (If there were a patch acceptance policy) but it'd be pointless at 
this point.
>
> BTW, you already have a right to appeal - it's a message to wine-devel
> with a well-reasoned argument.

Ah yes, but is it independent... There is a single acceptance channel, this is 
poor system design.

Bob