On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 4:31 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That description assumes that FESCo members are preschoolers who are > easy to trick and also need to be reminded who said what every day. > That's certainly not the case. The objections against the proposal > were made very clearly and they certainly weren't forgotten over a few > days. Those objections also didn't *change* over those few days, so > repeating them wouldn't actually change anything. They don't need to be preschoolers; it's not that hard to manufacture an opinion among well informed adults, even unintentionally by just having a lot of conviction about it. The seeds for the revote were placed in the _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 change discussion and throughout the discussion, repeated explanations of why the proposals are not comparable were ignored, instead of which the focus seemed to be on driving consensus towards getting a revote on the frame pointer proposal and trying to paint the tools team's position as being duplicitous. In the _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 ticket one of the FESCo voters (who also drove the revote FWIW) took a hard negative stand only because they perceived a double standard on performance, which had, by then, already been debunked a couple of times in the devel thread. While he did change his vote to +1 later, he appeared to do so only after other members voiced their support. If that's not influencing narrative then I don't know what is. Multiple other FESCo voters, when voting for the _FORTIFY_SOURCE proposal, talked about the frame pointer proposal, again clearly indicating that there is a cross-influence. Finally, another voting member commented, this time on the re-vote ticket[1], again indicating that the reason for the revote is the misdirection in the _FORTIFY_SOURCE proposal discussion. Christian did make an impassioned plea on the re-vote ticket for the case of frame pointers and it's perfectly understandable if that was a turning point for those who changed their vote (and please say it if that was what it was; I'd disagree but that's a different matter then) but the thing is, that plea needs counterarguments and further discussion and there was no opportunity for that to happen. Even then, the only reason why the revote happened at all was because of the persistent misdirection in the _FORTIFY_SOURCE proposal. > Speaking for myself, I heard the objections from various sides, and I > think I understand them. In particular I think that the objections from > the compiler team are based on correct evaluation of the effect of the > change. But that evaluation is hyperfocused on benchmark performance and > doesn't look at the needs of the whole ecosystem. I think that the > advantages of the proposal and the gains I hope will be realized outweigh > the drawbacks. Ack, I respect that even if I don't agree with the conclusion. Thanks, Sid [1] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2923#comment-833708 _______________________________________________ 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
