On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:03 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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? To be clear, none of the involved parties requested anonymity. The FESCo ticket was filed privately to avoid pre-judgement on the mailing list and so that FESCo could take their time discussing the issue. The ticket just cannot be made public post-facto, because it also references a CoC issue which *is* private and cannot be shared. 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
