On 12/18/24 6:27 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
The Fedora Council met today. After our regular meeting (where we're taking
the next formal step in the gitforge process!) [1], we had a private video
call for about half an hour on this topic. As transparency is part of what's
at issue, we intentionally did not make any decisions in that call; we just
needed the higher bandwidth to help understand the situation. After, we
followed up with another ad-hoc public meeting [2].
ForgeJo is indeed very exciting, I'm looking forward to it.
From this, we have two actions:
First, we ask FESCo to put their decision on hold while we investigate, and
to restore Peter's proven-packager access in the meantime.
Second, we are going to compile a factual report of what happened and when.
This is going to take some time (and would even without the holidays), and I
appreciate your patience. The specific situation connects into broad
questions about what "proven packager" should be — and even bigger ones
about what it means to be a package maintainer in Fedora. I hope that we can
improve how we collaborate and communicate overall. Once we have a full
understanding, we will make recommendations on next steps, and possibly
adjust Council policies.
Sounds good. Perhaps this mail also deserves a new thread on its own? It
seems there's still some things simmering in the other threads :)
--
_______________________________________________
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
