On 12/17/24 1:49 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
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.
I'm sorry Fabio but what is going on here? This just sows more discourse. You want to keep things private yet you're now referencing and implying a CoC issue in the same ticket as the provenpackager, e.g. relating to the same person?
As far as I can tell [1] FESco does not concern itself with CoC issues and while some members between FESco and the CoC committee [2] are shared I'd really like to know why FESco is or was discussing CoC issues? Perhaps I misunderstand the boundaries here.
This really ruffles my feathers and *especially* because you seem directly involved as a reporting party while voting in FESco on that same issue and thus it stands to reasonably assume that you are not detached enough from this particular issue either.
[1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/#_reporting_and_enforcement [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/coc-committee/#_responsibilities_of_the_fedora_code_of_conduct_committee
-- _______________________________________________ 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
