On 12/16/24 17:03, Adam Williamson wrote:
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?
OTOH, I have to wonder why this needed to be publicized at all? What
purpose does it serve?
--
Yaakov Selkowitz
Principal Software Engineer, Emerging RHEL
Red Hat, Inc.
--
_______________________________________________
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
