On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:42 PM Randy Barlow
On 4/3/20 4:41 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> We didn't quash communication for reasons already mentioned. We didn't
> facilitate it is a more accurate assessment, for which we have
> acknowledged and apologized.
You certainly didn't engage with the community. Fedora has a change
process, and every other significant change goes through it. Sure, not
everyone is happy with the results of every decision, but there is at
least open discussion. That open discussion often influences the
decision. You didn't do that here, and the only communication of the
decision was buried in an e-mail that many people don't read. That
communication was also a decision, not an invitation for discussion.
There is no process now for discussion to influence the decision, a
cornerstone of open development.
This is not open.
I'd like to point out *every other major infrastructure change* has
gone through the change process, debated publicly, and approved by
FESCo before implementing:
* Merged Core and Extras in our CVS:
* Deployment of Koji:
* Deployment of Bodhi:
* Deployment of Dist-Git: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dist_Git_Proposal
* Koji signed repos: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KojiSignedRepos
* Deployment of Pagure:
* Deployment of MBS: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ModuleBuildService
* Added Modular Compose: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ModularCompose
* Added Zchunk repodata: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Zchunk_Metadata
* Gated Rawhide: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GatingRawhidePackages
* Dropped i686 content:
* Fedora active user metrics:
* Using Taiga for the Change proposals:
* Enabling modules in the regular buildroot:
If we were to consider this as the requisite community discussion and
the decision as a "proposal", then the resounding negative feedback
would be sufficient to *not* do this without going back to the drawing
board and improving the proposal.
But of course, that's not what is happening. And that's a problem in
itself. We accepted the deviation in procedure for Fedora
infrastructure changes for *this* change because there was a described
process that was considered functionally equivalent. But then *that*
process was not followed. You've effectively shattered the trust with
the community that you attempted to create with this.
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!