On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 8:11 PM Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Let me preface this with: I don't speak for FESCo in this response, just for myself as a FESCo member. We are still coordinating internally. > 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. Filing a public ticket with all information that can be publicly shared was discussed during the video meeting we held last week. To my knowledge, we still plan to do this, but it was not mentioned in the emails that were sent. We should have noticed this, but we didn't. > 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. While I personally agree with this, please take into account that this is the first time provenpackager status has been revoked, so there was no established process. > 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). We discussed when / how to publicize this decision, and the date was chosen somewhere between "reasonably quickly after the decision was made" and "most FESCo members will be offline for the holidays". > - 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. All I can say here is ... we're working on it. Not all information that was discussed privately can be shared publicly. > 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? Both "packager" and "provenpackager" group memberships are clearly within FESCo's purview, see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/ and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#revoking Fabio -- _______________________________________________ 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
