Re: Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-03)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> PS: The impression I get is that everything was deliberately rigged so
> that the vote would end up the way it did:
> 
> 1. A new ticket was filed, in order to exclude the participants of the
> previous discussion.
> 2. The people watching the old ticket were NOT notified.
> 3. The Tools Team was NOT notified.
> 4. The proponents of the Change, on the other hand, WERE notified.
> 
> So, with all of the above, the discussion participants were preselected to
> only include people in favor of the change.
> 
> 5. The ticket was filed in the middle of the holiday season. Many people
> in Europe are on vacation until today.
> 6. There was NO thread about the reopening of the discussion on the
> mailing list. The first message that mentioned the issue on the mailing
> list was "Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-03)" from
> 2023-01-03 09:39 UTC, only 7 hours 21 minutes before the meeting. This is
> in contrast to the Change policy requiring at least a week between the
> mailing list announcement and opening the FESCo ticket.
> 7. Only 4 days had elapsed between the (unannounced) opening of the ticket
> and the vote. This is clearly insufficient. The one week in the Change
> policy that I cited above is designed as a minimum time for discussion.
> 8. The change was approved only 2 weeks before the mass rebuild, leaving
> little to no time to revert it in the contigency case.
> 
> So, this ensured that whoever was deliberately NOT invited had no chance
> to find out by themselves and intervene before it was too late.
> 
> This strikes me as extremely intransparent and undemocratic.

PPS: This is particularly striking when you consider that the same person 
who filed the new ticket and excluded one side from the discussion entirely 
was the one complaining just a month earlier about the OLD discussion:

> Yes, but the other stakeholder I wanted there didn't even know it was on
> the agenda yesterday, which meant we mostly heard only one side (the
> toolchain people).

See: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2817#comment-830204

Complaining about something and then deliberately doing the same thing the 
other way round, way to go!

        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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux