On Monday, 06 April 2020 at 12:29, Leigh Griffin wrote: [...] > > Yes, this whole "decision" is in dictatorship relation to the > > community. > > > > Not following the standard procedures caused that I and probably > > many people in the community didn't pay much attention to it. > > We followed the procedures that were outlined to us. So you think "just following procedures" makes it all right and gives you mandate to continuing to pursue a decision that the community is telling you was wrong despite your following procedures? > > I thought you are simply going to collect requirements and then we > > will talk. Collecting the requirements was actually very useful. > > Providing the analysis for the requirements would be useful. > > Providing a recommendation would be ok. Providing a "decision" like > > that crosses the line. > > > > It sends quite a bad message that no matter what you start doing for > > the community and how useful it becomes, RH management can come at > > any time and make your work vanish, which is what is happening here > > with pagure on dist-git effort and probably also zuul efforts might > > get replaced by Gitlab CI. > > We have nothing to do with zuul and Gitlab CI may be made available as > a service if folks want to use it. It's not just about CI. You only commented about the least significant point of the above paragraph and ignored the rest. That seems to be the pattern with your communication. Please change that. [...] > > But still, please, listen to what the community is telling you. > > We are. That's not the impression you are giving here. > > While you may have means to force your decision as RH management > > representative, doing so can be damaging for both sides (RH and > > Fedora). > > We are not forcing a decision. We are still engaged with the Fedora > Council on next steps and factoring in the requirements of the > community. Right now, our wider needs are saying we cannot support > Pagure and we intend on replacing that with Gitlab from a CPE > perspective. You are forcing a decision because you're refusing to revisit the decision you have made *for* the community without the engagement that the community feels was required. If you had stopped at the first objections and revisited the decision making process with the rest of the community involved in an open manner, you would have been forgiven, because everyone here is trying to assume good faith. Alas, you haven't done that. Apologizing for your mistakes is a necessary step, but it's not sufficient. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan _______________________________________________ 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
