On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 at 19:50, Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Could we please get one set of answers from FESCO versus each member giving out slightly different versions which can look contradictory. I realize that this process is not an easy one, but having different 'stories' can make it less trustworthy overall.
Also, I would like to make the following suggestions on what should be done:
1. Get the tickets which were discussed together
2. Clarify the process of what is really expected of architecture maintainers and probably release engineers. Up until now, people who are in charge of architecture have been given a lot of leeway in packages, koji, and other areas to make sure that composes can happen everyday. [Peter has been the ARM architecture maintainer and helping out release engineering for years. ]
3. Next clarify the rules and process for proven packagers. I have now read at least 3 different expectations of package maintenance for proven packagers so it seems that it is highly unclear to what is allowed.
4. Finally I would highly recommend getting this entire set of events reviewed by some sort of outside group or organization. They should at least come up with suggestions on what should have been in place before and what needs to be in place from now on.
Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren-- _______________________________________________ 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
