On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote: > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In some cases we were dealing with situations where reporters wanted to remain anonymous This strikes me as problematic. Why should there be a right to anonymity in this process? This is essentially a technical/process dispute, right? I see no indication that Peter has been accused of a particularly heinous crime or a CoC violation or anything like that. I'm having trouble seeing how anything that doesn't rise to that level could warrant a process involving anonymity for 'reporters' and behind-closed-doors FESCo discussions. Has there been any suggestion that anyone would maliciously target folks who raised honest concerns about Peter's (or anyone else's) PP actions? If not, why the secrecy? -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://www.happyassassin.net -- _______________________________________________ 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
