On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:01 AM David Kaufmann <astra(a)ionic.at> wrote:
Unfortunately I think this arguing is moot, as the issue seems to have
been decided already anyway. I only remember one change "proposal" to
actually being pulled back in the last year, and I'm really disappointed
about having fake discussions on devel@ whilst the decision has already
been made.
It is incorrect to assume this change is a done deal. Community
feedback is critical to the Changes process (and is one of the key
factors behind why we replaced the Features process).
To wit, five change proposals were rejected by FESCo for Fedora 32 alone:
1.
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2323#comment-624955
2.
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2291#comment-615815
3.
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2268#comment-611948
4.
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2241#comment-609153
5.
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2198#comment-587826
In addition, change proposals can be withdrawn by the owner before
being submitted to FESCo, as happened last week:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
Changes are often updated based on community feedback (which is why we
recently added a section to the proposal explicitly to record some of
that feedback). One example is the proposal to improve the counting in
DNF. The original[1] received a lot of feedback about the privacy
implications, so it was withdrawn and reworked to take that feedback
into account[2].
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/DNF_UUID&oldid=53...
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DNF_Better_Counting
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis