Re: Revocation of provenpackager access from pbrobinson

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Dne 19. 12. 24 v 11:46 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 10:51:30AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 18. 12. 24 v 22:21 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 02:28:09PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
This is not recent example, but really bad example of PP's work IMHO:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/c/c31c7edb6913eb7417ee68c59997548df2943dde
I do not think nitpicking over _ten year old_ commits is helpful.


PP should lead by example IMHO. And and this is not any different!

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tiktoken/c/66a5632ba66ed27b6d1d633592724d6be612d638

There is no explanation, there is no BZ ticket, it did not come via PR, it
was not discussed as far as I can judge.

So what really is helpful if not comparing ten years old behavior to current
behavior? How comes Matt that you are not the first one at least admitting
that there is something wrong with the old example (and you should be
already aware about the new one)? Where is the new Peter learned from his
previous mistakes?
The start of this thread was already problematic. Expanding on it by digging
up old commits, from just one out of many provenpackagers, and shaming them
in public is making it worse.

This not something we should be doing in Fedora, as it is verging on both
trial-by-mob & personal harassment IMHO.

We need to accept the Fedora Councils' stated intent to investigate and
resolve this overall situation in a professional way.

                     How comes that if 7 members of FESCo stands against this,
they are harassed on this ML (and I can likely start to count myself into
that group)? And I genuinely wonder who will join FESCo next round?
We must distinguish between FESCo the Fedora entity, and individual members
of FESCo.

Targetted public harassment of individual FESCo members is not OK, but
respectfully debating the outcome of FESCo decisions is valid.


Unfortunately, these topics can't be separated anymore.

Just FTR, I agree with the FESCo decision, while I am sad the communication went as it went. But I am glad that FESCo acknowledged their mistake and I have sympathy for them.


Vít

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
_______________________________________________
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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux