On Sun, Jan 08, 2023 at 06:06:47PM +0100, 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. I agree with your earlier post that this did not have enough visibility, enough notice, or enough time. I was certainly taken by surprise, and I was trying to keep an eye on this one in particular. (Having the discussion under "Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting" didn't help it jump out at me either.) BUT, I do not think it was done with malice, as "deliberately rigged" implies. I don't see that at all -- I see excitement and interest in moving forward on something that already has taken a long time, and looming practical deadlines. > Therefore, I hereby request that the vote be annulled as having happened > in violation of the Change policy. So, from a purely "what are the rules?" view, the Change process says: FESCo will vote to approve or deny a change proposal in accordance with the FESCo ticket policy. ... and I won't quote all of that, but looking at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/#_ticket_policy... I don't see any violations, either in the letter or the spirit of what is written. And, from a practical point of view, since this passed with six +1 votes, I'm not sure what benefit canceling and re-voting would really add. It might be useful to improve both the documented policies. The Changes policy has nothing about reconsidering Changes in the current cycle that I can see. (Or, actually, for that matter, for resubmitting in future cycles either, unless i'm missing something.) And the FESCo ticket policy could include a) some steps for wider communication, and b) maybe something about holidays and other times which might need special consideration. Most crucially, let's please drop the idea that anyone is acting out of malice. I'm quite sure that everyone arguing passionately on both sides of this issue has the best interest of Fedora and of Fedora Linux users in mind. Let's all keep that framing in mind in the ongoing discussion. Thank you. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ 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
