The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven Packager rights from a contributor.
FESCo didn't have a specific policy for dealing with a request to remove Proven Packager rights. In addition, the FESCo process was handled entirely in private. The contributor didn't receive a formal notification or warning from FESCo, and felt blindsided by the official decision when and how it was announced. The Fedora Council would like to extend our sincerest apology on behalf of the Fedora Project to them.
The lack of a defined process for situations like this needs to be addressed before such a decision can be made, including provisions for appropriate warnings and chances to respond by the contributor. In addition, the announcement of a decision should not publicly identify the person.
Fedora Council is also asking FESCo to review and improve our packaging guidelines and governance policies. For example, the guidelines for architecture teams[1] and the proven-packager guidelines[2] do not align (even though both are written and current policies) and must be reconciled.
The Council and the Code of Conduct Committee will be happy to review and collaborate with FESCo on these topics should they wish.
-- Matthew, on behalf of the whole Fedora Council
[3284] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3284
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Architecture_Maintainer_Team_Re...
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Who_is_allowed_to_modify_which_pa...
Hey Matthew (and rest of council),
On Thu, May 22, 2025, at 5:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven Packager rights from a contributor.
The linked issue is private, are there plans to make it public in some form or shape so we can see how the process went at the time?
The contributor didn't receive a formal notification or warning from FESCo.
In the initial announcements about this FESco said that the proven packager in question was warned multiple times and had numerous private complaints against them. Specifically:
Despite several warnings and conversations with FESCo representatives, X has continued to use his provenpackager privileges in an unapproved manner
How should we reconcile this? Were there warnings but they weren't "official", or were there no warnings and the FESco announcement was incorrect?
The lack of a defined process for situations like this needs to be addressed before such a decision can be made, including provisions for appropriate warnings and chances to respond by the contributor. In addition, the announcement of a decision should not publicly identify the person.
Great, public naming and shaming was my main concern.
Thanks for the update.
On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 06:09:15PM +0200, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
Hey Matthew (and rest of council),
On Thu, May 22, 2025, at 5:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven Packager rights from a contributor.
The linked issue is private, are there plans to make it public in some form or shape so we can see how the process went at the time?
No, I don't think we'll make the issue public. Among other reasons, there is a lot of discussion about personal matters. Making it publicly visible would go against the goal of avoiding making this public.
The contributor didn't receive a formal notification or warning from FESCo.
In the initial announcements about this FESco said that the proven packager in question was warned multiple times and had numerous private complaints against them. Specifically:
Despite several warnings and conversations with FESCo representatives, X has continued to use his provenpackager privileges in an unapproved manner
How should we reconcile this? Were there warnings but they weren't "official", or were there no warnings and the FESco announcement was incorrect?
The word "formal" is very important here. We never wrote a message signed by "FESCo", with a specific terms and warnings, etc. There were two instances of FESCo internally deciding to have one of the members reach out and have an in-person talk, but those talks could be considered informal.
Zbyszek
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [28/05/2025 15:24] :
No, I don't think we'll make the issue public. Among other reasons, there is a lot of discussion about personal matters. Making it publicly visible would go against the goal of avoiding making this public.
Back in December, we were told that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in the private ticket would be filed. Is this still happening?
Emmanuel
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 08:22:45PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
- Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [28/05/2025 15:24] :
No, I don't think we'll make the issue public. Among other reasons, there is a lot of discussion about personal matters. Making it publicly visible would go against the goal of avoiding making this public.
Back in December, we were told that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in the private ticket would be filed. Is this still happening?
I don't remember who said that. Ask them.
Zbyszek
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 3:05 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 08:22:45PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
- Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [28/05/2025 15:24] :
No, I don't think we'll make the issue public. Among other reasons, there is a lot of discussion about personal matters. Making it publicly visible would go against the goal of avoiding making this public.
Back in December, we were told that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in the private ticket would be filed. Is this still happening?
I don't remember who said that. Ask them.
If I remember correctly, this was something that was suggested FESCo could / should do, yes. However, when the Council stepped in and started their investigation, we decided not to take any further public actions until the result of this investigation was published.
However, we already did put together a summary of the contents of the private ticket(s), the discussion that happened there, and the video call between FESCo members where the final decision was made - this was submitted to the Council to aid with their investigation. Assuming both FESCo and the Council agree, this document could be made public (I don't think it contains any sensitive information that would need to be removed / redacted, but I would defer to the Council on that).
Fabio
On 5/22/25 11:15, Matthew Miller wrote:
The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven Packager rights from a contributor.
FESCo didn't have a specific policy for dealing with a request to remove Proven Packager rights. In addition, the FESCo process was handled entirely in private. The contributor didn't receive a formal notification or warning from FESCo, and felt blindsided by the official decision when and how it was announced. The Fedora Council would like to extend our sincerest apology on behalf of the Fedora Project to them.
The lack of a defined process for situations like this needs to be addressed before such a decision can be made, including provisions for appropriate warnings and chances to respond by the contributor. In addition, the announcement of a decision should not publicly identify the person.
Fedora Council is also asking FESCo to review and improve our packaging guidelines and governance policies. For example, the guidelines for architecture teams[1] and the proven-packager guidelines[2] do not align (even though both are written and current policies) and must be reconciled.
The Council and the Code of Conduct Committee will be happy to review and collaborate with FESCo on these topics should they wish.
-- Matthew, on behalf of the whole Fedora Council
Is the *middle* of an election cycle -- when some have already voted -- really the time for this? Couldn't this have been done beforehand? Is FESCo planning on responding to this also during the elections?
FESCO stated they was assembling the facts back in december but wanted to discuss it with the revoked person first.
I’ve have not seen anymore on that since then so I assume they are still working on it
On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 19:08, Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com wrote:
On 5/22/25 11:15, Matthew Miller wrote:
The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven Packager rights from a contributor.
FESCo didn't have a specific policy for dealing with a request to remove Proven Packager rights. In addition, the FESCo process was handled
entirely
in private. The contributor didn't receive a formal notification or
warning
from FESCo, and felt blindsided by the official decision when and how it
was
announced. The Fedora Council would like to extend our sincerest apology
on
behalf of the Fedora Project to them.
The lack of a defined process for situations like this needs to be
addressed
before such a decision can be made, including provisions for appropriate warnings and chances to respond by the contributor. In addition, the announcement of a decision should not publicly identify the person.
Fedora Council is also asking FESCo to review and improve our packaging guidelines and governance policies. For example, the guidelines for architecture teams[1] and the proven-packager guidelines[2] do not align (even though both are written and current policies) and must be
reconciled.
The Council and the Code of Conduct Committee will be happy to review and collaborate with FESCo on these topics should they wish.
-- Matthew, on behalf of the whole Fedora Council
Is the *middle* of an election cycle -- when some have already voted -- really the time for this? Couldn't this have been done beforehand? Is FESCo planning on responding to this also during the elections?
-- Yaakov Selkowitz Principal Software Engineer, Emerging RHEL Red Hat, Inc.
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@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
On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 19:20, Roy Bekken roy.bekken@gmail.com wrote:
FESCO stated they was assembling the facts back in december but wanted to discuss it with the revoked person first.
I had a conversation with a member of FESCo and the FPL about the situation some time ago.
I’ve have not seen anymore on that since then so I assume they are still working on it
On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 19:08, Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com wrote:
On 5/22/25 11:15, Matthew Miller wrote:
The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven Packager rights from a contributor.
FESCo didn't have a specific policy for dealing with a request to remove Proven Packager rights. In addition, the FESCo process was handled entirely in private. The contributor didn't receive a formal notification or warning from FESCo, and felt blindsided by the official decision when and how it was announced. The Fedora Council would like to extend our sincerest apology on behalf of the Fedora Project to them.
The lack of a defined process for situations like this needs to be addressed before such a decision can be made, including provisions for appropriate warnings and chances to respond by the contributor. In addition, the announcement of a decision should not publicly identify the person.
Fedora Council is also asking FESCo to review and improve our packaging guidelines and governance policies. For example, the guidelines for architecture teams[1] and the proven-packager guidelines[2] do not align (even though both are written and current policies) and must be reconciled.
The Council and the Code of Conduct Committee will be happy to review and collaborate with FESCo on these topics should they wish.
-- Matthew, on behalf of the whole Fedora Council
Is the *middle* of an election cycle -- when some have already voted -- really the time for this? Couldn't this have been done beforehand? Is FESCo planning on responding to this also during the elections?
-- Yaakov Selkowitz Principal Software Engineer, Emerging RHEL Red Hat, Inc.
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@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
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@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
Is the *middle* of an election cycle -- when some have already voted -- really the time for this? Couldn't this have been done beforehand? Is FESCo planning on responding to this also during the elections?
All parties - Council, FESCo and Peter, were aware beforehand that the council intended to publish this statement yesterday/today, and no one expressed concerns regarding the election cycle. I sincerely hope this does not affect anyone's voting decisions, the candidates running for our elections are wonderful and each could bring a lot of positive influence to the governance bodies they are candidates for.
I think everyone involved was and is eager to put this behind us, and I agree with the sentiment that unfortunately, this took much longer than anyone would have wanted it to. A lot of time has gone into this issue. Council conducted our own investigations, we spoke to Peter, and discussed this situation and what can be done to prevent this kind of situation from happening again. As mentioned, we are asking FESCo to review packaging guidelines, which I believe is top of their list if not already in progress, to do. As for the council, we will be working on a policy that can be used by any group within the project that will help guide them on how best to make decisions that could impact another person's ability to contribute to Fedora. As you can imagine, this is not a policy we wish to 'scramble' together, and will try to be thoughtful and clear in its crafting. We also intend to have feedback from our community too before any such policy becomes formalised.
This statement is intended to give closure to this issue so we can pursue building better guidelines and policies that the project needs in order to avoid situations like this again, and there sure is a lot to be done!
On Thu, 2025-05-22 at 11:15 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
The lack of a defined process for situations like this needs to be addressed before such a decision can be made, including provisions for appropriate warnings and chances to respond by the contributor. In addition, the announcement of a decision should not publicly identify the person.
This sounds like a good plan. Thank you for following up on this.
Matthew Miller venit, vidit, dixit 2025-05-22 17:15:12:
The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven Packager rights from a contributor.
FESCo didn't have a specific policy for dealing with a request to remove Proven Packager rights. In addition, the FESCo process was handled entirely in private. The contributor didn't receive a formal notification or warning from FESCo, and felt blindsided by the official decision when and how it was announced. The Fedora Council would like to extend our sincerest apology on behalf of the Fedora Project to them.
The lack of a defined process for situations like this needs to be addressed before such a decision can be made, including provisions for appropriate warnings and chances to respond by the contributor. In addition, the announcement of a decision should not publicly identify the person.
From everything that was communicated back then, those warnings and chances to respond had been given and lead to no insight or change on the receiving end.
While I do appreciate The Council following up on this, consistent communication matters. The way it appears now from this e-mail and Aoife's, all that matters currently is:
- "lack of defined process" - "eager to put this behind us" - "This statement is intended to give closure to this issue"
Case closed for formal reasons and unwillingness to deal with the past, on all sides!
This lack of transparancy and consistency is - frankly speaking - unsatisfying and makes me wonder whether that some reasoning would have been applied to everybody (and not just every's buddy). Yes, I'm being unfair, intentionally so, to make the point where that lack of transparancy leads us to: defnitely not to "closure" in a good sense.
Michael
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 11:35:04AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Matthew Miller venit, vidit, dixit 2025-05-22 17:15:12:
The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven Packager rights from a contributor.
FESCo didn't have a specific policy for dealing with a request to remove Proven Packager rights. In addition, the FESCo process was handled entirely in private. The contributor didn't receive a formal notification or warning from FESCo, and felt blindsided by the official decision when and how it was announced. The Fedora Council would like to extend our sincerest apology on behalf of the Fedora Project to them.
The lack of a defined process for situations like this needs to be addressed before such a decision can be made, including provisions for appropriate warnings and chances to respond by the contributor. In addition, the announcement of a decision should not publicly identify the person.
From everything that was communicated back then, those warnings and chances to respond had been given and lead to no insight or change on the receiving end.
While I do appreciate The Council following up on this, consistent communication matters. The way it appears now from this e-mail and Aoife's, all that matters currently is:
- "lack of defined process"
- "eager to put this behind us"
- "This statement is intended to give closure to this issue"
Case closed for formal reasons and unwillingness to deal with the past, on all sides!
Your initial observation is true, but I feel the conclusion is wrong.
Yes, the formal reasons are the deciding factor here. This specific wording in the Council statement was suggested by me, because I believe that we should document and follow a more formal process if a similar decision needs to be taken in the future. This is how we are dealing with the past, by adjusting our guidelines and processes so that misunderstandings and bad communication and other missteps on FESCo's side can be avoided. The intent is also to increase transparency for the people directly involved. (And to also decrease it a bit for others, by not including personal information in the public announcement.)
At this point there is no need to relitigate the original issue. If violations of policy happen in the future, we'll deal with them when they are reported.
Zbyszek
-
Aoife Moloney -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Fabio Valentini -
Matthew Miller -
Michael J Gruber -
Peter Robinson -
Randy Barlow -
Roy Bekken -
Simon de Vlieger -
Yaakov Selkowitz -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek