Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> The approved/second/reworked version of this _did_ take lots of people's
> concerns into account. There were/are still some few people who still
> didn't like it for whatever reasons, but I think it's pretty clear that
> concerns were defintely heard. The change owners were very patient and
> responded to tons of people. You cannot sometimes please everyone.
Well, here, you are making the next fallacious assumption that is so common
in the Fedora Change process (after the "change is always good" one), and
that is that every unacceptable Change proposal can be reworked to make it
acceptable. That is fallacious because some Changes are unacceptable by
design, i.e., the whole concept of the Change is unacceptable. E.g., IMHO,
telemetry is always an unacceptable privacy invasion, and as such, no amount
of reworking of the Change proposal can possibly make it acceptable. Such an
unfixable Change just has to be finally (i.e., irrevocably) rejected.
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
