On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 8:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:49:24AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
> > > 17:07:47)
> > > * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> > > are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> > > rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
> > > (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
> >
> > So basically we are stuck with the status quo. Meaning that there is still
> > nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
> > reconsidered after the change deadline, and no guarantee that the "effort to
> > notify people" is actually going to happen (especially in the future, as
> > FESCo composition changes). Sad. I had got the impression that there were
> > consensus in FESCo to improve the situation. Apparently, that was a false
> > impression, unfortunately.
>
> Your assumption of bad faith from elected representatives of the community is
> worrying. You manage to imply bad intentions not only from the current group,
> but even from the future ones, yet unknown. Quite an achievement! I think that
> you are under a false impression that repeating your argument ad infinitum is
> useful for something.
I agree that Kevin's wording has a negative tone, though I also agree
with his point.
"make an effort" is not a clear and explicit enough wording, and it
leaves room for interpretation, which might lead to questionable
situations in the future, even if everything is going to be done in
good faith.
I also think that the FESCo meeting process is **not** the right place
to regulate this. The change process is regulated by the "Change
policy". The rules for FESCo to reconsider decisions already taken and
communicated to the community should be captured in the same policy
document, as they are part of the same process. Again: this is not
about questioning the good faith of any current or future FESCo
members, rather about the nature of bureaucracies and the need for
clear and consistent regulations in order to reduce the risk of muddy
situations occurring, which can cause conflicts within the community.
Speaking about conflicts: as I already stated above, I also agree that
Kevin's wording can be read as negative and not particularly
constructive. But I also would like to call out that Zbyszek's use of
language is outright unacceptable.
No matter how I read it: it is an attack on the person, rather than a
constructive argument. ("your assumption", "you manage", "you are
under a false impression"). While I do understand the stress caused by
these neverending discussions and arguments, I expect better from a
member of FESCo, especially around "hot topics" like this.
Hunor
_______________________________________________
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
