This issue will be discussed during this week's FESCo meeting on Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net.

I'm one and only one maintainer of this module, he was never ever maintainer of that module (neither corresponding RPMs) and I think this is violation of our policies.

What would you like from FESCo to resolve this issue?

What would you like from FESCo to resolve this issue?

@till, it is first time I encounter such harmful thing so I would like FESCo to tell if it is just me being to agressive or it is real violation of policies and how to deal with such kind of issues.

@till, it is first time I encounter such harmful thing so I would like FESCo to tell if it is just me being to agressive or it is real violation of policies and how to deal with such kind of issues.

Ok, IMHO the next step would be to get a statement by @ppisar - I hope he will respond here. I hope a misunderstanding or lost IRC messages are the cause here.

#agreed let involved parties + sgallagh work it out, come back to fesco with more info if there is still a dispute (+7, 0, -0)

The reality is different.

First I created and built modules/libtom:f27 module because from the content of the module is obvious there cannot better stream name for stream specific for platform:f27.

Then I came across modules/ninja and because there was possibility the stream for platform:f27 could be named after the upstream version, I asked ignatenkobrain. He said that he did not like creating any new branches and recommended breaking ninja:master instead. I opposed that it breaks CI and that was all. He also said he did not want any branches for any module he maintained. So I refrained from creating any new branches for his modules.

In other words his disapproval came after libtom:f27 was created.