Neal Gompa wrote:
> I don't think this necessarily is as strong conflict of interest as
> you'd expect. Most folks are involved in multiple teams (WGs, SIGs,
> etc.) and those "conflicts" naturally exist. I think the only *real*
> conflict would be a change owner voting *for* their change. For
> example, If this were such a thing to worry about, I'd be unable to
> vote for any change proposal, due to the number of groups I *actually*
> do work in.
Well, I do see a strong correlation between changes being driven by large
influential workgroups (e.g., Workstation or Modularity) and them being
accepted by FESCo, even over predominantly negative community feedback.
> But again, I don't necessarily see them being employed by Red Hat as a
> negative there. It *does* induce some bias, for sure, but in general,
> this is a lot less pronounced than many folks would expect. And I'm
> speaking as someone who tends to run into them more often than not. ;)
>
> Today, there are a mix of Red Hat and non-Red Hat folks, and it seems
> to work out fine. And even Red Hatters have pushed back against other
> Red Hat-driven changes. So I think this fear is mostly unfounded.
Well, I also see a strong correlation between changes being driven,
requested and/or needed by RHEL and them being accepted by FESCo, even over
predominantly negative community feedback.
I am aware that correlation does not imply causation, but it does make me
wonder where those correlations come from, and in particular, whether
conflicts of interest play a decisive role or whether there is some other
mechanism in play here.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
