Heads up - Anaconda 22.17 will enforce 'good' passwords

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Adam Williamson <adamwill at fedoraproject.org> said:
> There's no policy (AFAIK) on what is and is not a Change. FESCo has 
> the power to effectively declare something to be a Change (and thus 
> subject to review and so forth) if it decides to do so, but there's 
> nothing beyond that. And as I said to otherChris, 'without open 
> discussion' is just plainly false. There's a ton of 'open discussion', 
> spread across three mailing lists.

There was discussion about a different proposal on devel, apparently
discussion about this change by anaconda devs, and then the announcement
here that the change had been made (no discussion until after the fact,
and all "discussion" about not liking the decision being largely met
with a response of "too bad").  It is not reasonable to expect everybody
interested in Fedora to subscribe to the anaconda developer list (which
isn't even a Fedora list, but a Red Hat list); there are dozens of
Fedora mailing lists, and the vast majority of people cannot keep up
with all of them.

> Eh, that seems like a pointlessly loaded question. I mean, in a sense, 
> sure, they always have. They *write the installer*. That's always 
> going to involve some degree of 'determining system policy', if you 
> interpret that phrase broadly enough. What do you want, every anaconda 
> commit to go through a committee review phase?

Hyperbole much?  The majority of anaconda commits don't make significant
changes to installed system policy.  When they do, they tend to be
discussed (not just announced) on other lists.  For example, see the
recent thread about /boot and /var and mkfs.  Somebody _asked_ if that
would be a big deal, people spoke up, and the input was accepted and the
change modified.

> And 'recourse' seems like such a weird word that, again, I don't 
> really know how to reply to it. You can discuss the decision, in a 
> respectful fashion, here or on devel@ or on anaconda-devel-list at . You 
> can take it up with FESCo. You could also, of course, wait more than 
> one lousy day to give the devs a chance to reply before whipping up a 
> storm of righteous indignation, but so often that seems too much to 
> ask? 

Again, "be excellent to each other"?

This change was _announced_ here, not discussed (and some responses make
it sound like it is not open to discussion).  There was no real
justification for the change in the announcement, except for a vague
"better security" bit.  That will almost always cause a negative
response from people that disagree.

-- 
Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>