On Mon, 6 Apr 2020, Leigh Griffin wrote: > We cannot take the view of a singular person and make changes based on > that, we defer to them for prioritisation and their input. That's how the But, having reviewed the 'wishlist' of criteria quoted last week, [in the thread with Ben Cotton's message last Friday -- I believe the URL to the list directly was posted in the thread: CPE Git Forge Decision, but cannot lay my hands on it presently], it very obviously had not been winnowed down or curated down into any sort of rank order priority, or even something as simple as an Agile set of cards, sorted into stacks: - Must be present, showstopper if absent - Expected, but not critical if absent - Nice to have, but 'neh' ... so that task decomposition could proceed. If it had been openly done, with actual stakeholders at the table, the 'Must be free sources' criteria would have been in that top pile, and remained there. Without that 'polestar', other criteria were treated as critical As an outsider (from CentOS 1 era), who votes in each Fedora election, it looks as a non-transparent result is being 'justified' ex post If there are unacceptible non-Free parts at Gitlab to the Fedora vision of attainable via no non-freely licensed package, I'd be studying how to relieve the non-free constraints in Gitlab, rather than 'fighting City Hall' Just my thoughts, -- Russ herrold _______________________________________________ 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
