On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:59:32AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > 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 think there's a desire to try and prevent surprises, but also to not add a bunch more process to something that is already the heaviest process we have. I did propose we change it to apply to 'formally' rejected and announced proposals (which would let us reject proposals as written in a meeting, but conditionally accept them later in the same meeting without having to make them go through the entire process again), but that didn't garner enough support. > I've reopened https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2951 and will try to find a > compromise that has a chance of approval. But shouldn't it have to start completely over since we rejected it? :) kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
