On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 01:06:20AM GMT, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > I am not making any such assumputions. Let me be clear (and speaking > > only for myself): > > > > Changes are not always good > > Not every unacceptable/rejected change can be reworked to be acceptable. > > > > Where did I say otherwise? > > The "Not every unacceptable/rejected change can be reworked to be > acceptable." part is not the impression I get when I read your paragraph: > > > The approved/second/reworked version of this _did_ take lots of people's > > concerns into account. In this case yes. In other cases no. You are trying to make some kind of sweeping generality based on a specific case. > So "lots of people's concerns" were "take[n] into account". That does not > imply though that this is sufficient to fix the issues with the proposal, as > you are implicitly implying here. This is where I first got the impression > that you are assuming that it is always possible to rework a Change to make > it acceptable. I'm sorry if you got that impression. > > 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. > > That goes even father, implying that it is OK to ignore the objections of > "some few people". There is also no evidence that the people still objecting > are few, for that matter. It's ok to approve a change that a majority of FESCo members feel is acceptable. I can't speak to the thoughts of my fellow FESCo members in this case. Sometimes not everyone likes/would approve a change, thats unfortunate, but sometimes it happens. > > The change owners were very patient and responded to tons of people. > > Again, responding does not imply that they even changed the proposal as a > response (as opposed to trying to explain the issues away, as happens so > often), let alone that the changes were sufficient to fix the issues in it. Looking at the orig proposal vs the one that was approved shows they changed the proposal? > > > You cannot sometimes please everyone. > > And that again implies that it is OK to trample over the objections of other > people and force through controversial changes. It's ok for FESCo members to use their judgement in passing changes that still have some objections. Anyhow, I have to get up super early to travel tomorrow, so I will leave it at that. 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
