Dne 11. 01. 23 v 12:16 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
So shouldn't there be some policy for revoting? E.g.:
~~~
If revote is initiated (by somebody?), the revote is going to be
announced on devel(-announce) and can happen as soon as in one week.
~~~
Also, I am not quite sure who and how initiated the revote. Maybe the
policy should be about initiating the revote instead. E.g. if I disagree
with some FESCo decision and I think it should be revoted, I would
announce my intention to initiate the revote on devel(-announce).
Vít
And maybe it should not happen in the ticket, but on the meeting?
Vít
Dne 11. 01. 23 v 3:15 Siddhesh Poyarekar napsal(a):
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 4:31 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
>> That description assumes that FESCo members are preschoolers who are
>> easy to trick and also need to be reminded who said what every day.
>> That's certainly not the case. The objections against the proposal
>> were made very clearly and they certainly weren't forgotten over a few
>> days. Those objections also didn't *change* over those few days, so
>> repeating them wouldn't actually change anything.
> They don't need to be preschoolers; it's not that hard to manufacture
> an opinion among well informed adults, even unintentionally by just
> having a lot of conviction about it.
>
> The seeds for the revote were placed in the _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 change
> discussion and throughout the discussion, repeated explanations of why
> the proposals are not comparable were ignored, instead of which the
> focus seemed to be on driving consensus towards getting a revote on
> the frame pointer proposal and trying to paint the tools team's
> position as being duplicitous.
>
> In the _FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 ticket one of the FESCo voters (who also
> drove the revote FWIW) took a hard negative stand only because they
> perceived a double standard on performance, which had, by then,
> already been debunked a couple of times in the devel thread. While he
> did change his vote to +1 later, he appeared to do so only after other
> members voiced their support. If that's not influencing narrative
> then I don't know what is.
>
> Multiple other FESCo voters, when voting for the _FORTIFY_SOURCE
> proposal, talked about the frame pointer proposal, again clearly
> indicating that there is a cross-influence.
>
> Finally, another voting member commented, this time on the re-vote
> ticket[1], again indicating that the reason for the revote is the
> misdirection in the _FORTIFY_SOURCE proposal discussion.
>
> Christian did make an impassioned plea on the re-vote ticket for the
> case of frame pointers and it's perfectly understandable if that was a
> turning point for those who changed their vote (and please say it if
> that was what it was; I'd disagree but that's a different matter then)
> but the thing is, that plea needs counterarguments and further
> discussion and there was no opportunity for that to happen. Even
> then, the only reason why the revote happened at all was because of
> the persistent misdirection in the _FORTIFY_SOURCE proposal.
>
>> Speaking for myself, I heard the objections from various sides, and I
>> think I understand them. In particular I think that the objections from
>> the compiler team are based on correct evaluation of the effect of the
>> change. But that evaluation is hyperfocused on benchmark performance
>> and
>> doesn't look at the needs of the whole ecosystem. I think that the
>> advantages of the proposal and the gains I hope will be realized
>> outweigh
>> the drawbacks.
> Ack, I respect that even if I don't agree with the conclusion.
>
> Thanks,
> Sid
>
> [1]
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2923#comment-833708
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
>
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue