Governance revisited (Wineconf report)

[Robert Shearman]

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?

BTW, you already have a right to appeal - it's a message to wine-devel 
with a well-reasoned argument.

-- 
Rob Shearman