Let me preface by saying that I don't like the entire idea of
provenpackagers and feel that that role should belong to a SIG (either a
relevant SIG to the package, *or* some "package ems" SIG.
On 12/14/24 2:33 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
On Tuesday (2024-12-10), the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee
(FESCo) met in a private meeting to discuss whether Fedora contributor
Peter Robinson should retain his provenpackager privileges. Over the
last year, multiple private tickets have been opened with FESCo
regarding Peter’s packaging behavior. In particular, on numerous
occasions Peter has pushed uncommunicated updates to packages he has no
prior relationship with, interfering with those packages’ maintenance
efforts. On at least a few occasions, this has resulted in other
maintainers being forced to react to these changes with no coordination
or notice.
What is the reasoning for the steering committee to publicly name Peter
here? From previous experiences (in other communities) with these sorts
of processes the name(s) tends to be withheld and I see no benefit here.
If the goal is to 'warn' other provenpackagers then the name is not
necessary, if the goal is to inform complainants then that could've been
done privately.
It is just unnecessarily harmful to name and shame someone on the public
internet like this. *If* you're going to do this (and I *strongly*
disagree); why not use their FAS name instead?
This really feels bad.
The Fedora Proven Packager Policy[1] reads: “Provenpackagers lend a hand
when help is needed, always with a desire to improve the quality of
Fedora. Prior to making changes, provenpackagers should try to
communicate with owners of a package in bugzilla, dist-git pull
requests, IRC, matrix, or email. They should be careful not to change
other people’s packages needlessly and try to do the minimal changes
required to fix problems, as explained more in depth in ‘Who is Allowed
to Modify Which Packages’[2].”
It says "should" and in reality provenpackagers or those with other
rights to packages often intervene. Needlessly and minimal are also very
loose term.
Which change(s) are we talking about and what was the reasoning given by
Peter?
FESCo would like to make this abundantly clear: this decision was not
made lightly, nor without consideration for Peter’s past contributions
to the Fedora Project. This decision is not irrevocable: Peter will be
permitted to re-apply in the future for provenpackager status, provided
he demonstrates a justified need for those privileges and remains in
good standing as a Fedora packager.
It seems heavy handed to have Peter re-apply without any way for him to
prove his goodwill in the meantime.
Would it not be 'better' (as far as a better exists in situations like
these) to revoke provenpackager privileges for one cycle (say, the
current one + F42) and then review later on?
Signed,
Fedora Engineering Steering Committee
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/
[2]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_packages/
--
_______________________________________________
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
