On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:08 PM Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If this isn't sufficient for community, then I don't know what can be done. > > I followed the System Change process, and to be honest, it is time consuming > > but worked fine. > > Exactly. So, even though it was a community change, you ended up using > the System Change process---because no community change process is > currently in place. > But it also had a significant technical component, so even if there was a community change process in place, it might have better fit the engineering changes process anyway. I think that's part of what I'm struggling with here: how do we define the scope? If there are two separate processes, how do we decide which one is appropriate? Some are obvious, but there are a lot of gray areas. The Weblate migration and the Ask Fedora migration are two examples of things that could have fit in either category. Weblate moreso because it's tied to a release, whereas Ask could have been an Objective (Objectives don't have to be technical) or a mini-objective if such a thing existed. Which brings me back to the thought that we don't need a new capital-p Process, we need to do a better job of making our existing communication more visible. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
