On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 01:49:27AM +0100, Fabio Valentini 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 > 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. This last sentence refering to a CoC issue really surprises me for multiple reasons. First, due to the duty of confidentiality, I would not expect the existence of a CoC issue to have been mentioned on this list at all, but that ship has sailed now & has further clouded this thread given that few will know the outcome of this issue either way :-( IIUC, the CoC Committe are exclusively responsible make any decision making around a CoC issue, with a strict need to know basis for reading in selected other parties, eg to get legal advice, or to request specific evidence, or to put into effect their decisions. IOW, I can understand FESCo being told the outcome of a CoC issue, if the CoC Committee's decision requires an administrative task, such as to remove privileges. I can also understand FESCo being asked to provide evidence around some specific actions that a contributor might have been part of. Again, a purely administrative task that FESCo would need to perform. Both those scenarios though should be strictly separated from any other dicussions FESCo is holding under its own remit, even if they happen to involve some common parties. If the CoC committee did need to request something of FESCo as part of their work, then I think it would be prudent for the CoC committee to request FESCo to temporarily pause all other decisions involving common parties, until notified that the CoC issue is resolved, either way. This would avoid FESCo's own decisions being tainted by knowing of an unresolved CoC issue. TL;DR: I'm surprised that the ticket around Peter's provenpackager status evaluation has any mention of a CoC issue, as FESCO is not there to re-litigate the same issue. That mixing of responsibilities has tainted FESCo's decision and prevents the level of transparency which contributors expect for issues under FESCo's remit. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ 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
