On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:36 PM, shmuel siegel <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > in other open source projects. The point is that this discussion an > decision making process occurred within a limited audience, not necessarily How is fedora-devel a "limited" audience? Many of the major maintainers weighed in on that thread. > including everybody who will be affected. It should not be surprising that > other audiences will object when they realize the consequences of the > changes. Are there concrete changes that you could suggest to how to actively involve more people? I'm all ears. > 2) As the subject was reopened in this list and needed another committee > discussion to close the issue, the conclusion should have been communicated > to this list, preferably as a note to the thread that reopened the > discussion. It actually came up on fedora-test-list, where the majority of discussions like this take place. The reason that the discussion of the workflow proposal was done on f-devel is precisely to engage a wider audience than that of f-t-l The meeting minutes of the triage meeting are always posted to f-t-l by the wonderful John Poelstra. And in a private email, someone mentioned that the discussion was held in private. All of the triage meetings are open to any interested party, they occur on Tuesdays at 1500UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net > That said, I really want to praise Jon for a well thought out proposal for > improving the bugzilla workflow. Also, after the last few flame wars that I > have watched, the entire approach to community input was refreshing. Thanks! No one is perfect. If you have ways that I could improve, please feel free to let me know :) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
