On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 6:31 AM Joe Orton <jorton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 08:01:11PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > FESCo is an elected body. If people aren't happy with how they are being > > represented, I would encourage them to find candidates they feel will > > represent their interests better and get them to run for election. > > Having FESCo empowered in this way has always felt unhealthy to me, and > I don't find it surprising that there is resentment toward decisions > which go against perceived community consesus - I frequently feel > exactly the same. I don't think that "if you don't like the system, stop > complaining or go away" should be the only way we respond to this. I didn't say that. I said people that don't feel they are being represented should find representatives, or they should find other productive ways to affect change. You know what clearly doesn't work though? Just sending rants on email threads after the fact. That's not *doing* anything. It's not a counter-proposal, it's not asking for FESCo to re-evaluate based on new information, it's not even a healthy debate. Honestly, I don't want Fedora to lose anyone and I want it to be the place where we have hard conversations about the technical direction the Linux ecosystem should take, with first class distribution that backs that direction. At some point though, people earnestly do need to figure out if they want to participate in that activity and work and if it's aligned with their values. That's not asking them to go away. That's asking them to figure out if they want to contribute. Some won't, and that's fine. I contribute very little to Fedora these days, but it's aligned with where I think things should go (mostly) and I'm a very happy user. If it wasn't aligned, I'd go somewhere else because I don't think it would be healthy for me or the project to do nothing but second guess and post nothing but negative takedowns. > Having a "majority rule" vote of e.g. packagers or provenpackagers on > major technical decisions would be far superior, in my view. Apache > communities have worked this way forever. This would be a productive way to affect change. It would likely require a proposal to the Fedora Council to change the governance structure, so if that's something the community would like to see then I would suggest they start pulling that together. josh -- _______________________________________________ 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
