Hi FESCo,
On behalf of FESCo, please accept our apology for how we communicated the news regarding the revocation of provenpackager privileges for Peter Robinson. This one was really difficult for us to figure out how best to communicate and we have made mistakes.
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 and we are trying to respect that.)
What are we doing right now?
- We are currently assembling the list so we can share it with everyone, but FESCo first wants to discuss it with Peter.
To be clear I don't think FESCo should be marking it's own homework here. There are 9 members of FESCo, if one member can't raise concerns about the process or even engage with the individual over the situation I don't think FESCo is going to be impartial in the review of what has happened.
I have filed a ticket with the council requesting an independent review of the incident because as it stands I don't trust FESCo to be partial or independent here. I have not made it public because I don't feel a bunch of me too/+1 comments are useful. FESCo has a representative on the council (if the docs are correct that is David Cantrell) so they have a representative to review that should they wish to and whoever does that review will no doubt be speaking with them anyway.
- We are discussing revising/updating the provenpackager policies (or at least the wording) as well as FESCo's policies around handling situations related to provenpackager.
I don't believe FESCo should be doing that either, TBH I have never felt FESCo should be the owner of that process, the FESCo acronym stands for "Fedora Engineering Steering Committees). Traditionally a steering committee is exactly that, it takes input from other committees to make decisions to steer the project. They are not the lawmakers, the judge or the executioners. I don't believe there is enough distance between the engineering (packaging in this case) and the creation of rules and the enforcement of the rules and this creates a conflict of interest. As a result of this I believe in light of the current situation and example FESCo should step back because I feel that now that FESCo is in the spotlight that they won't be impartial to the process and it may be adjusted not in the interest of the project as a whole but to help justify their actions of the current situation.
Please bear with us as we gather all of the information. It has been noted already, but this is the first time FESCo has been asked to remove provenpackager privileges
Yet as a result of the fact that it's the first time they didn't ask anyone to check over their homework before they publicly executed it. That speaks volumes!
-- _______________________________________________ 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
