On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I wonder if the process we're following (as it is defined today) > is actually beneficial for self-contained changes ? Did having a > vote which rejected the change actually improve Fedora, or was > it just busy work that is better eliminated in the common/simple > case ? > I've given a lot of thought to an "announcement-only Change" path in the last three years. There are definitely cases where increased visibility would help (particularly in the release notes and release announcement that Matthew writes). There are a few reasons I haven't done anything with that yet: * I don't think it would reduce the overhead much. The FESCo vote is generally no burden on the Change owner. The rest of the process would still be in place, so I doubt we'd see any meaningful increase in use of the process. * Escalating to "needs a vote" becomes messy. Is there a magic phrase that needs to be said? That's a burden on the community who now have to remember to say the right words. It also leaves us open to me missing the use of the magic phrase. If we don't have a magic phrase, then someone may think they've objected sufficiently to a proposal and then being surprised when it gets auto-approved. * It adds another path to the Changes process. Ideally, changes to the process should simplify, not add more complexity. I'm definitely open to changes to the Changes process. I'm just not sure this specific approach is necessary. The issue we're discussing is rare—I don't recall another case like it in the three years I've been in this role—and I'm generally reluctant to change processes to address edge cases. > The announcement of the change on this list resulted in minimal > discussion and no show stopper objections. The points raised in > the FESCo meeting could have just been discussion in the change > announcement email thread. Did we actually need an interactive > meeting for it at a specific time where only a tiny set of people > are actually present to participate ? > It wouldn't have even come up in a meeting except there were a couple of FESCo members opposed to it. If we're going to change processes, perhaps the better change is to explicitly invite people to the meeting when their Change proposal is on the agenda. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
