Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Normally, I wouldn't phrase a letter this way. But Kevin will incessantly
> repeat the same things after a decision is made that he disagrees with
> or when there is some fact that he doesn't like.
So you are now accusing me of disagreeing with facts? Seriously?
> I also stand by what I wrote above. Kevin's words that "there is still
> nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
> reconsidered after the change deadline" can only be true if we assume that
> decision made by FESCo to "make an effort to notify people when proposals
> are resubmitted for voting" has no effect. And for it to have no effect
> the FESCo chair and other members would need to ignore the decision and
> the documented process [1].
Or they could try and fail to follow it. And no consequences will happen,
because, well, they tried, i.e., "made an effort". There is neither
accountability for the person who made the mistake, nor a sanction for the
feature that slipped through. (To clarify the latter part: If affected
people were not notified in time, the change should automatically be put on
hold until 1. they had a chance to comment and 2. their comments were
discussed by FESCo. Even if it means missing the deadline to rush the change
into Fedora n. Nobody is going to die if the change gets pushed back to
Fedora n+1.)
> In short, only when bad faith is assumed.
As pointed out in my previous reply, good faith accidents can happen.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
