On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:37 AM Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:38 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:56 AM Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > We haven't ironed out the full details but what was incredibly clear to us was that Gitlab was the decision to make. The next step in getting there is what we are engaging in now to get thoughts and suggestions and expect several threads in that capacity from a technical perspective in the coming weeks and months. >> >> >> It is not incredibly clear to the respondents on devel@. I don't care >> to imagine what stronger disagreement on this particular point looks >> like. > > > I respect that there is disagreement but Gitlab is the choice we are making. Why this choice? That's what's not clear. And it's not fair to call this mere disagreement, because the decision can't even be properly absorbed. It is prima facie not an open or transparent process, yet is being claimed to have been. That contradiction is not trust enhancing. >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:27 AM Iñaki Ucar <iucar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > I was referring to, and I was expecting, an open conversation about >> > the User Story list, an open analysis of the requirements list. In >> > other words: >> > >> > 1. Open conversation to gather requirements. Done. >> > 2. Publication of User Story list. >> > 3. Open conversation to discuss (2). >> > 4. Publication of the final decision. >> > >> > I was expecting (3), and it's missing. >> >> >> I concur, and don't think the missing piece has been adequately >> addressed. There's a reason why there's bewilderment at the decision, >> it's not ignorable. > > > How would you like us to address it more clearly? Fedora has had the publication of its User Story list, a threads worth of discussion on it occured and it was submitted. As have other stakeholder groups. I think the crux here is that we didn't publish the entire stakeholder User Stories for dissemination to each individual stakeholder group. With each group valuing something different, as is obvious from the discussion around individual requirements that has occured in several threads here, we didn't feel the value would have been there. That's on me for not looping the comms back in and I apologise for that. > >> >> Were there deliberations by CPE Team in between (2) and (4)? > > Yes, several hundred person hours worth of analysis, meetings and dissecting the requirements. It would be addressed more clearly by seeing the summary, distillation, metric, method, by which those hundreds of hours were turned into the decision. These entire threads are a verbose way of saying "show your work." > >> >> Is there >> a record of those deliberations? > > > No, they were mostly video calls / in person meetings and the result is the User Story list and decision document for sharing. I think a summary of the first hour of these several hundred hours, and the last hour, would be useful. There's no way to reconstruct this? Deliberative bodies should be keeping notes, summary of major decisions, pros, cons, liabilities, prioritization of conflicting requirements, what things are in and out of scope, etc. There must be something to show. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ 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
