Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> 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. >> > > Ok let's scenario this out so as several people want us to restart and go > again, largely because they disagree with the decision and Pagure is the > choice that they would have made. If we re-engage now, I firmly believe we > will get a whole new set of requirements to complement the existing > requirements but scoped deliberately (as has been suggested by numerous > replies) to a situation where Pagure is the only choice for Fedora. And how will that be different from your initial set of requirements, that had far too surprising similarities to GitLab EE's features? I really don't like to jump in and start pointing fingers, but during the initial discussion of the requirements, it was pointed out multiple times that all of this looks like a pretense to ditch Pagure for Gitlab. So honestly, I really don't see how that would make the process so far more unfair (it would actually make it more fair to all Fedora contributors who value Pagure & the associated values and who are feeling increasingly ignored and betrayed). Regards, Dan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
