On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:15 PM Robbie Harwood <rharwood@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Robbie Harwood <rharwood@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> My intention was to provide some scope to the problem, because it > >> seemed that a lot of alternatives being floated were not seeing some > >> of the more subtle cases that we were trying to address. However, the > >> biggest problem is that nearly every email to the list has been > >> started with a "Begging the Question" Fallacy. People have started > >> from the premise that "Modularity is Bad" and all of the rest of the > >> conversation has continued from there. I'd like to provide an > >> opportunity for us as a community to *constructively* state our > >> grievances with Modularity. The fundamental root cause of some of the > >> miscommunication is, I believe, that Modularity has problems and that > >> people have assumed that they are fundamental and unfixable. > > > > Your framing here precludes a complete redesign, and that option needs > > to be on the table for any real progress in communication and trust to > > be made. If others have "begged" that "modularity is bad", you have > > done the same for "modularity is good". > > It's really frustrating to be repeatedly told we're not arguing in good > faith and then see things like this (from today's fesco meeting [1]): > > 15:48:07 <sgallagh> Can we please stop pretending like "start over > from scratch" is a real option? > > Starting from scratch should be an option. Removing modularity entirely > should be an option. Of course, so should be using modularity as it > exists (or modifying it), but if we don't have those first two as > options when there are proponents, this isn't a real technical > discussion. > That quote is not fully in context, but that's entirely fair because I didn't include enough context during the FESCo meeting. I apologize for that. (Also, as you can tell from the rest of the log, I was getting frustrated by that point). When I said it's not a real option, I did not include any of my reasoning (thus Begging the Question as you rightly point out). My reasoning is basically this: * Everyone on the Modularity Team is being paid by Red Hat to work on Modularity. * Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 shipped with Modularity. * The Modularity Team is responsible for maintaining that in RHEL 8 regardless of what happens in Fedora. * A full redesign in Fedora is not realistically possible with the people and resources we have available to us while also maintaining the current implementation for ten years. * Therefore we are focused on trying to get the current implementation into better shape (and/or finding a safe migration strategy to a new solution) rather than start from an entirely green field. Thank you, Robbie, for calling me out on this. I did need to explain this more fully. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
