On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:22 AM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > I assumed we already did this. That's why I made sure to remind the co-owners of my Changes about it. If we don't, that's definitely a failure that we should fix. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
