On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 19:28 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:21 Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:04 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > > One thing I'll note here: this is *exactly* the kind of thing that > > > > would have come to light very quickly if the open process which was > > > > committed to at the start had actually been followed through on. > > > > > > You are absolutely right. I screwed up. > > > > Just to be clear, by that comment I was referring to the whole stuff > > about open meetings and calls and things that were supposed to happen > > before the decision was made, but which CPE called off because the > > decision was "obvious". > > > > That was not the case and I have explained this several times. There was an > open discussion on the Fedora requirements before they were finalized. But there wasn't an open discussion on the finalized list, or on the summarized list. That would have been the point at which this gap could have been spotted. Still, if the F/OSS requirement was communicated in some other way and was not *entirely* lost in the process of user story evaluation (as, to be fair, the rejection of Github implies), the situation is certainly not as bad as it first seemed. > There was not an open discussion on the entire list end to end for reasons > I have already stated as cross stakeholder analysis with no recourse for > all stakeholders involved was not something that would have added value. I > stand over that and again I apologise for not looping the entire > stakeholder group in. I'm referring to this specific promise which was made in the initial description of the process: "Additionally, a live video call and associated IRC meetings will be held and advertised in advance to discuss the requirements, talk about concerns and address any questions." That, AFAIK, did not happen. If it *had* happened, that would have been precisely the point at which someone would have looked at the list and said "hey, wait, why does it not say anything at all about F/OSS?", and the discussion we've had here over the last two days could have happened there instead. Which, I'm pretty sure, would have added quite a lot of value. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ 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
