On 10. 03. 23 9:59, Hunor Csomortáni wrote:
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.
Note that at least 2 of us voted for this proposal with a note that it's better
than status quo and hence not worth rejecting, but we'd rather see a better
solution.
I've reopened https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2951 and will try to find a
compromise that has a chance of approval.
--------
General note (not directed at Hunor or Kevin specifically): I encourage more
folks to run for FESCo, especially if they are not satisfied with how things
are. FESCo is an elected body that should represent the Fedora developers, but
we rarely get more than <seat number>+1 candidates.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
