On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In "the spirit of transparency": > FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in > the private ticket should be filed, it just hasn't happened yet. It is unclear, from that statement, whether it was intended to create that ticket before the original posting and responses, although no reference to that additional upcoming information was originally mentioned. At this point, I simply have not established an opinion as to whether I personally agree or disagree with the decision (or just don't care), so I look forward to more information coming so that I can make an informed evaluation. But the process of communicating that decision seems to have been done poorly. And that should be improved. For those with a modicum of experience with public communications in a larger organization one immediately notices that: - The "Friday news dump", while historically the way to do things, is now considered problematic in the age of social media and always on communications, as while there is no great time for such a drop, Friday now almost always extends the cycle for a number of days (that some communications departments have not gotten the memo is a different issue). - That *all* the information must be made available initially. A "drip, drip, drip" of additional information extends the cycle and starts things all over again (not good for anyone). Sometimes the details do evolve, but getting it all out as soon as possible stops the bleeding sooner. Now, on to other related issue..... I take it that in this case the people issues ended up in FESCo's purview primarily because it was believed that there was no other place for it to be dealt with. The "E" in FESCo stands for engineering. It is conventionally accepted that the simple venn diagram of excellent engineering and excellent people skills do not always have a large overlap. And I vote for people for FESCo based on their engineering views and not their ability to deal with people issues (as far as I know, we don't even ask questions about their people skills). That suggests that perhaps FESCo should not be the place where people issues are handled. The experience from the recent Kent Overstreet experience IRT the Linux Kernel suggests that one should separate the people part from the engineering part. In the case of the kernel they had their CoC committee. I was under the (mistaken?) understanding that there was also a Fedora Code of Conduct committee. It would seem that FESCo should have referred this issue to them, and that the CoCc would have made the decision and taken responsibility for the notifications and actions. Did I misunderstand the existence of the Code of Conduct committee, or that this issue should have been under their purview? -- _______________________________________________ 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
