1:57 a.m.
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Tuesday at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
irc.libera.chat.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2023-03-07 17:00 UTC'
Links to all issues to be discussed can be found at:
https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda
= Discussed and Voted in the Ticket =
#2959 Change: Modernize Thread Building Blocks for Fedora 39
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2959
APPROVED (+5,0,-0)
= Followups =
#2960 FESCo blocker bug: Popular third-party RPMs fail to install/update/remove in F38 due
to security policies verification
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2960
#2958 F38 incomplete changes: 100% complete deadline
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2958
#2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2951
= New business =
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual
issue. The report of the agenda items can be found at
https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can
reply to this e-mail, file a new issue at
https://pagure.io/fesco, e-mail me directly, or bring it
up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note
that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.
11:32 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
== Meeting summary
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-03-07/fesco.2023-03...
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-03-07/fesco.2023-03...
Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-03-07/fesco.2023-03...
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (zbyszek, 17:00:53)
* #2960 FESCo blocker bug: Popular third-party RPMs fail to
install/update/remove in F38 due to security policies verification
(zbyszek, 17:04:10)
* An bodhi update has been submitted and tests indicate it solved the
issue. (zbyszek, 17:05:40)
* #2958 F38 incomplete changes: 100% complete deadline (zbyszek,
17:05:44)
* The ticket has three items, and they all seem to be on track.
(zbyszek, 17:07:47)
* #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
17:07:47)
* AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
(zbyszek, 17:18:25)
* Next week's chair (zbyszek, 17:18:29)
* ACTION: zbyszek will chair next meeting (zbyszek, 17:19:14)
* Open Floor (zbyszek, 17:19:18)
* LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1255
(zbyszek, 17:20:45)
* https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1255 (zbyszek,
17:22:18)
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
(zbyszek, 17:22:25)
Meeting ended at 17:23:43 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* zbyszek will chair next meeting
== Items voted in the ticket
#2952 Nonresponsive maintainer: Andy Mender <andymenderunix>
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2952
APPROVED (+3, 0, 0)
10:49 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
* #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals
(zbyszek,
17:07:47)
* AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
(zbyszek, 17:18:25)
So basically we are stuck with the status quo. Meaning that there is still
nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
reconsidered after the change deadline, and no guarantee that the "effort to
notify people" is actually going to happen (especially in the future, as
FESCo composition changes). Sad. I had got the impression that there were
consensus in FESCo to improve the situation. Apparently, that was a false
impression, unfortunately.
Kevin Kofler
1:46 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:49:24AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
> 17:07:47)
> * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
> (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
So basically we are stuck with the status quo. Meaning that there is still
nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
reconsidered after the change deadline, and no guarantee that the "effort to
notify people" is actually going to happen (especially in the future, as
FESCo composition changes). Sad. I had got the impression that there were
consensus in FESCo to improve the situation. Apparently, that was a false
impression, unfortunately.
Your assumption of bad faith from elected representatives of the community is
worrying. You manage to imply bad intentions not only from the current group,
but even from the future ones, yet unknown. Quite an achievement! I think that
you are under a false impression that repeating your argument ad infinitum is
useful for something.
Zbyszek
2:59 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 8:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:49:24AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
> > 17:07:47)
> > * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> > are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> > rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
> > (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
>
> So basically we are stuck with the status quo. Meaning that there is still
> nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
> reconsidered after the change deadline, and no guarantee that the "effort to
> notify people" is actually going to happen (especially in the future, as
> FESCo composition changes). Sad. I had got the impression that there were
> consensus in FESCo to improve the situation. Apparently, that was a false
> impression, unfortunately.
Your assumption of bad faith from elected representatives of the community is
worrying. You manage to imply bad intentions not only from the current group,
but even from the future ones, yet unknown. Quite an achievement! I think that
you are under a false impression that repeating your argument ad infinitum is
useful for something.
I agree that Kevin's wording has a negative tone, though I also agree
with his point.
"make an effort" is not a clear and explicit enough wording, and it
leaves room for interpretation, which might lead to questionable
situations in the future, even if everything is going to be done in
good faith.
I also think that the FESCo meeting process is **not** the right place
to regulate this. The change process is regulated by the "Change
policy". The rules for FESCo to reconsider decisions already taken and
communicated to the community should be captured in the same policy
document, as they are part of the same process. Again: this is not
about questioning the good faith of any current or future FESCo
members, rather about the nature of bureaucracies and the need for
clear and consistent regulations in order to reduce the risk of muddy
situations occurring, which can cause conflicts within the community.
Speaking about conflicts: as I already stated above, I also agree that
Kevin's wording can be read as negative and not particularly
constructive. But I also would like to call out that Zbyszek's use of
language is outright unacceptable.
No matter how I read it: it is an attack on the person, rather than a
constructive argument. ("your assumption", "you manage", "you
are
under a false impression"). While I do understand the stress caused by
these neverending discussions and arguments, I expect better from a
member of FESCo, especially around "hot topics" like this.
Hunor
3:59 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On 10. 03. 23 9:59, Hunor Csomortáni wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 8:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:49:24AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>> * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
>>> 17:07:47)
>>> * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
>>> are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
>>> rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
>>> (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
>>
>> So basically we are stuck with the status quo. Meaning that there is still
>> nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
>> reconsidered after the change deadline, and no guarantee that the "effort
to
>> notify people" is actually going to happen (especially in the future, as
>> FESCo composition changes). Sad. I had got the impression that there were
>> consensus in FESCo to improve the situation. Apparently, that was a false
>> impression, unfortunately.
>
> Your assumption of bad faith from elected representatives of the community is
> worrying. You manage to imply bad intentions not only from the current group,
> but even from the future ones, yet unknown. Quite an achievement! I think that
> you are under a false impression that repeating your argument ad infinitum is
> useful for something.
I agree that Kevin's wording has a negative tone, though I also agree
with his point.
"make an effort" is not a clear and explicit enough wording, and it
leaves room for interpretation, which might lead to questionable
situations in the future, even if everything is going to be done in
good faith.
I also think that the FESCo meeting process is **not** the right place
to regulate this. The change process is regulated by the "Change
policy". The rules for FESCo to reconsider decisions already taken and
communicated to the community should be captured in the same policy
document, as they are part of the same process. Again: this is not
about questioning the good faith of any current or future FESCo
members, rather about the nature of bureaucracies and the need for
clear and consistent regulations in order to reduce the risk of muddy
situations occurring, which can cause conflicts within the community.
Note that at least 2 of us voted for this proposal with a note that it's better
than status quo and hence not worth rejecting, but we'd rather see a better
solution.
I've reopened https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2951 and will try to find a
compromise that has a chance of approval.
--------
General note (not directed at Hunor or Kevin specifically): I encourage more
folks to run for FESCo, especially if they are not satisfied with how things
are. FESCo is an elected body that should represent the Fedora developers, but
we rarely get more than <seat number>+1 candidates.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
11:53 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:59:32AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Note that at least 2 of us voted for this proposal with a note that it's
better than status quo and hence not worth rejecting, but we'd rather see a
better solution.
I think there's a desire to try and prevent surprises, but also to not
add a bunch more process to something that is already the heaviest
process we have.
I did propose we change it to apply to 'formally' rejected and announced
proposals (which would let us reject proposals as written in a meeting,
but conditionally accept them later in the same meeting without having
to make them go through the entire process again), but that didn't
garner enough support.
I've reopened https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2951 and will try to
find a
compromise that has a chance of approval.
But shouldn't it have to start completely over since we rejected it?
:)
kevin
5:51 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On 10. 03. 23 18:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I've reopenedhttps://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2951 and will try
to find a
> compromise that has a chance of approval.
But shouldn't it have to start completely over since we rejected it?
Exactly, that's why I said in the ticket "No proposal yet". Once a proposal
is
formed, I'll gladly start over with it.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
5:47 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:59:03AM +0100, Hunor Csomortáni wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 8:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:49:24AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
> > > 17:07:47)
> > > * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> > > are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> > > rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
> > > (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
> >
> > So basically we are stuck with the status quo. Meaning that there is still
> > nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
> > reconsidered after the change deadline, and no guarantee that the "effort
to
> > notify people" is actually going to happen (especially in the future, as
> > FESCo composition changes). Sad. I had got the impression that there were
> > consensus in FESCo to improve the situation. Apparently, that was a false
> > impression, unfortunately.
>
> Your assumption of bad faith from elected representatives of the community is
> worrying. You manage to imply bad intentions not only from the current group,
> but even from the future ones, yet unknown. Quite an achievement! I think that
> you are under a false impression that repeating your argument ad infinitum is
> useful for something.
I agree that Kevin's wording has a negative tone, though I also agree
with his point.
"make an effort" is not a clear and explicit enough wording, and it
leaves room for interpretation, which might lead to questionable
situations in the future, even if everything is going to be done in
good faith.
Speaking about conflicts: as I already stated above, I also agree
that
Kevin's wording can be read as negative and not particularly
constructive. But I also would like to call out that Zbyszek's use of
language is outright unacceptable.
No matter how I read it: it is an attack on the person, rather than a
constructive argument. ("your assumption", "you manage", "you
are
under a false impression"). While I do understand the stress caused by
these neverending discussions and arguments, I expect better from a
member of FESCo, especially around "hot topics" like this.
Normally, I wouldn't phrase a letter this way. But Kevin will incessantly
repeat the same things after a decision is made that he disagrees with
or when there is some fact that he doesn't like. This nuisance does not
serve a communication mechanism, because the people at the receiving
end have already heard the exact same phrase from Kevin a dozen times,
but it does work as a way to grind people down. If you are just watching
the discussion from the side, you may see it just as "negative and not
particularly constructive", but I assure you it feels like more than that
after the fifth time.
I also stand by what I wrote above. Kevin's words that "there is still
nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
reconsidered after the change deadline" can only be true if we assume that
decision made by FESCo to "make an effort to notify people when proposals
are resubmitted for voting" has no effect. And for it to have no effect the
FESCo chair and other members would need to ignore the decision and
the documented process [1]. In short, only when bad faith is assumed.
[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=FESCo_meeting_process&typ...
Zbyszek
P.S. And if you wonder why its phrased as "make an effort": unfortunately
we have no unambiguous mechanism to notify people. Not everybody has a
pagure account, we can't add people to issues, they need to self-subscribe,
and some people only participate on fedora-devel, others only on IRC, etc.
11:57 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Normally, I wouldn't phrase a letter this way. But Kevin will
incessantly
repeat the same things after a decision is made that he disagrees with
or when there is some fact that he doesn't like.
So you are now accusing me of disagreeing with facts? Seriously?
I also stand by what I wrote above. Kevin's words that
"there is still
nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
reconsidered after the change deadline" can only be true if we assume that
decision made by FESCo to "make an effort to notify people when proposals
are resubmitted for voting" has no effect. And for it to have no effect
the FESCo chair and other members would need to ignore the decision and
the documented process [1].
Or they could try and fail to follow it. And no consequences will happen,
because, well, they tried, i.e., "made an effort". There is neither
accountability for the person who made the mistake, nor a sanction for the
feature that slipped through. (To clarify the latter part: If affected
people were not notified in time, the change should automatically be put on
hold until 1. they had a chance to comment and 2. their comments were
discussed by FESCo. Even if it means missing the deadline to rush the change
into Fedora n. Nobody is going to die if the change gets pushed back to
Fedora n+1.)
In short, only when bad faith is assumed.
As pointed out in my previous reply, good faith accidents can happen.
Kevin Kofler
2:40 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 05:57:53PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I also stand by what I wrote above. Kevin's words that "there is still
> nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being surprisingly
> reconsidered after the change deadline" can only be true if we assume that
> decision made by FESCo to "make an effort to notify people when proposals
> are resubmitted for voting" has no effect. And for it to have no effect
> the FESCo chair and other members would need to ignore the decision and
> the documented process [1].
Or they could try and fail to follow it. And no consequences will happen,
because, well, they tried, i.e., "made an effort". There is neither
accountability for the person who made the mistake, nor a sanction for the
feature that slipped through.
I have no idea what you're trying to achieve, really. *Everything* that we
do in Fedora is based on people voluntarily following the rules. There
is no formal "accountability", there's no court to police the rules or
apply sanctions. Things happen because we have a common goal and we
all voluntarily follow processes.
In this particular case, it is hard to define a hard rule because (as
the discussion showed) the cases that would be covered by the rule
differ a lot. There was no support for a hard rule in FESCo, and we
ended up with his soft rule that (IMO) is good enough and will solve
the original problem that started the whole discussion, while still
giving people the discretion to handle various cases as appropriate.
Since this is all a community process, if we implemented a very
specific hard rule as you want, it'd still be the same people implementing
it to the best of their ability. There would just be no possiblity
of adjusting for the corner cases without breaking the letter of
the rule.
Zbyszek
6:09 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 05:49:24AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> So basically we are stuck with the status quo. Meaning that there is
> still nothing preventing an already rejected feature from being
> surprisingly reconsidered after the change deadline, and no guarantee
> that the "effort to notify people" is actually going to happen
> (especially in the future, as FESCo composition changes). Sad. I had got
> the impression that there were consensus in FESCo to improve the
> situation. Apparently, that was a false impression, unfortunately.
Your assumption of bad faith from elected representatives of the community
is worrying. You manage to imply bad intentions not only from the current
group, but even from the future ones, yet unknown. Quite an achievement! I
think that you are under a false impression that repeating your argument
ad infinitum is useful for something.
Where in the paragraph you quoted have I written anything about bad faith? A
lack of notification can happen by accident in good faith, as apparently
happened in the case that triggered the whole debate. (At least, Neal Gompa
swears it was an accident.) And without any kind of policy enforcing it, a
pledge to "make an effort to notify people" is not a guarantee. That is all
I stated.
Another issue that was not addressed by the proposal at all is that the
change at stake was resubmitted too late, after the change submission
deadline, and hence should not have been allowed on that ground.
In addition, being elected is not sufficient to guarantee good faith, as can
be seen in politics. Not to mention that, in Fedora elections, there is
often not enough competition for voters to vote out candidates they do not
trust.
Kevin Kofler
3:37 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
* #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals
(zbyszek,
17:07:47)
* AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
(zbyszek, 17:18:25)
Can we also please tell Pagure to send notifications for tickets when
labels are changed, so that it's possible to watch the ticket and get
notified when the proposal makes it to the meeting?
The current process is difficult to follow. Basically, if you have
something in the pipeline, you need to remember check something every
week (either the announcement with the minutes, or the ticket itself,
assuming that the label is set correctly) to see if your proposal is
going to be discussed in the next meeting.
Thanks,
Florian
4:01 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:37 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
> 17:07:47)
> * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
> (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
Can we also please tell Pagure to send notifications for tickets when
labels are changed, so that it's possible to watch the ticket and get
notified when the proposal makes it to the meeting?
The current process is difficult to follow. Basically, if you have
something in the pipeline, you need to remember check something every
week (either the announcement with the minutes, or the ticket itself,
assuming that the label is set correctly) to see if your proposal is
going to be discussed in the next meeting.
We cannot subscribe you to a ticket, but you can subscribe to a ticket
of interest and get those notifications.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
4:07 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 10:02 Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:37 AM Florian Weimer
<fweimer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
>
> > * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
> > 17:07:47)
> > * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> > are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> > rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
> > (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
>
> Can we also please tell Pagure to send notifications for tickets when
> labels are changed, so that it's possible to watch the ticket and get
> notified when the proposal makes it to the meeting?
>
> The current process is difficult to follow. Basically, if you have
> something in the pipeline, you need to remember check something every
> week (either the announcement with the minutes, or the ticket itself,
> assuming that the label is set correctly) to see if your proposal is
> going to be discussed in the next meeting.
>
We cannot subscribe you to a ticket, but you can subscribe to a ticket
of interest and get those notifications.
Clarification: It is *already* part of the meeting (preparation) process to
update tickets with "this is going to be discussed, @user1 @user2 if you
have time please join". We added this for exactly that reason a few release
cycles ago. Sometimes that just doesn't happen properly due to late /
hurried / incomplete meeting prep.
Fabio
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
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
5:28 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
* Neal Gompa:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:37 AM Florian Weimer
<fweimer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
>
> > * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
> > 17:07:47)
> > * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
> > are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
> > rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
> > (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
>
> Can we also please tell Pagure to send notifications for tickets when
> labels are changed, so that it's possible to watch the ticket and get
> notified when the proposal makes it to the meeting?
>
> The current process is difficult to follow. Basically, if you have
> something in the pipeline, you need to remember check something every
> week (either the announcement with the minutes, or the ticket itself,
> assuming that the label is set correctly) to see if your proposal is
> going to be discussed in the next meeting.
>
We cannot subscribe you to a ticket, but you can subscribe to a ticket
of interest and get those notifications.
As far as I can tell, Pagure is not configured to send out mail on
label/tag changes, though.
Thanks,
Florian
5:14 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-03-07)
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:28:58AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Neal Gompa:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:37 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
>>
>> > * #2951 Proposal: policy for resubmitting rejected proposals (zbyszek,
>> > 17:07:47)
>> > * AGREED: FESCo will make an effort to notify people when proposals
>> > are resubmitted for voting without a formal change in the process
>> > rules. A note will be added to FESCo_meeting_process. (+7,0,0)
>> > (zbyszek, 17:18:25)
>>
>> Can we also please tell Pagure to send notifications for tickets when
>> labels are changed, so that it's possible to watch the ticket and get
>> notified when the proposal makes it to the meeting?
>>
>> The current process is difficult to follow. Basically, if you have
>> something in the pipeline, you need to remember check something every
>> week (either the announcement with the minutes, or the ticket itself,
>> assuming that the label is set correctly) to see if your proposal is
>> going to be discussed in the next meeting.
>>
>
> We cannot subscribe you to a ticket, but you can subscribe to a ticket
> of interest and get those notifications.
As far as I can tell, Pagure is not configured to send out mail on
label/tag changes, though.
pagure does include a message about tags added/removed, at least in the
case where a comment is made and/or the ticket is closed. It doesn't
seem to send a mail if only a label is changed. (I set a random label
on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2967 for a test right now, and I didn't
get any mail.)
It would be nice if this could be changed in pagure.
Zbyszek
193
days inactive
200
days old
16 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Fabio Valentini -
Florian Weimer -
Hunor Csomortáni -
Kevin Fenzi -
Kevin Kofler -
Miro Hrončok -
Neal Gompa -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek