On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:55 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:03 PM Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:16 pm, Stephen John Smoogen > > <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The issue isn't that you haven't done your work. It is that it looks > > > like you were set up to fail. The email from Michael comes across that > > > Workstation couldn't make a decision and told you to go see if FESCO > > > would approve it... but even then they don't have to follow through on > > > it because they are independent. So all that work, all the tantrums > > > from people who just love to fly off the handle on anything, all that > > > bull.. is for essentially nothing. Because in the end, if FESCO does > > > approve it, it means every spin etc is stuck with it while Workstation > > > can decide not to... even though they sent you to get the decision. > > > That is where if I was on FESCO I would say this proposal is dead. > > > Either a Working Group wants something and will fight for it, or they > > > don't. If they don't and have veto authority over anything FESCO > > > says.. then it doesn't matter what FESCO decides. > > > > At this point, we're discussing a weird corner case where FESCo > > approves this change proposal and then the WG does not. I guess it's my > > fault for suggesting that might occur, but it's really not a very > > likely scenario. Reality is that the WG members are not filesystem > > experts and after several weeks of discussing the issue, it became > > clear that we need more feedback from a larger group of developers. > > That's what the systemwide change proposal process is designed for. > > > > And to be clear, FESCo has veto authority over the WG, not the other > > way around. The WG was actually created by FESCo itself. I think > > technically we're a subcommittee of FESCo. Of course we certainly > > expect that we can ship Fedora Workstation with different defaults than > > the rest of Fedora, to the extent FESCo continues to allow that. > > > > I think there has been a good deal of miscommunication on all sides > (starting with me). > > What I was attempting to say in the first place was this: "It's not > clear to me that this proposal has the blessing of the Workstation WG > or Spins. I'm not willing to *assert* that they must do this work > without hearing whether they are willing and have capacity to do so." > I think I phrased this poorly initially. > > What I would like is just to have a statement added to the Change > Proposal that "Workstation WG and the maintainers of Spins Foo, Bar > and Baz are willing to make this the default if this Change Proposal > is accepted." I just didn't want anyone getting *dictated* at without > their input. To me, this sounds weird, because the implication of this Change being accepted is that we *would* do this. That's sort of the point of it. The owners of the spins are listed as change owners because I talked to all of them and they all accepted. I even have the pull request ready for Anaconda to make the change as soon as the change is accepted (I'm working on the other bits, kickstarts are complicated...). I would say that this is redundant with the statement that "the default for new installs shall be btrfs" that is in the Change itself. Nobody is being forced to do this in the manner I'm guessing you think. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ 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
