On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 at 19:42, Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 8:11 PM Gary Buhrmaster > <gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > In "the spirit of transparency": > > > FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in > > > the private ticket should be filed, it just hasn't happened yet. > > Let me preface this with: > I don't speak for FESCo in this response, just for myself as a FESCo > member. > We are still coordinating internally. > I personally think FESCo should be referring the problem to the council and stepping back from the entire process. > > It is unclear, from that statement, whether it was > > intended to create that ticket before the original > > posting and responses, although no reference to > > that additional upcoming information was originally > > mentioned. > > Filing a public ticket with all information that can be publicly > shared was discussed during the video meeting we held last week. > To my knowledge, we still plan to do this, but it was not mentioned in > the emails that were sent. We should have noticed this, but we didn't. > > > At this point, I simply have not established an > > opinion as to whether I personally agree or > > disagree with the decision (or just don't care), > > so I look forward to more information coming > > so that I can make an informed evaluation. > > > > But the process of communicating that decision > > seems to have been done poorly. And that > > should be improved. > > While I personally agree with this, please take into account that this > is the first time provenpackager status has been revoked, so there was > no established process. > > > For those with a modicum of experience with > > public communications in a larger organization > > one immediately notices that: > > > > - The "Friday news dump", while historically > > the way to do things, is now considered > > problematic in the age of social media > > and always on communications, as while > > there is no great time for such a drop, > > Friday now almost always extends the > > cycle for a number of days (that some > > communications departments have not > > gotten the memo is a different issue). > > We discussed when / how to publicize this decision, and the date was > chosen somewhere between "reasonably quickly after the decision was > made" and "most FESCo members will be offline for the holidays". > > > - That *all* the information must be made > > available initially. A "drip, drip, drip" of > > additional information extends the cycle > > and starts things all over again (not good > > for anyone). Sometimes the details do > > evolve, but getting it all out as soon as > > possible stops the bleeding sooner. > > All I can say here is ... we're working on it. > Not all information that was discussed privately can be shared publicly. > > > Now, on to other related issue..... > > > > I take it that in this case the people issues > > ended up in FESCo's purview primarily > > because it was believed that there was > > no other place for it to be dealt with. > > > > The "E" in FESCo stands for engineering. > > > > It is conventionally accepted that the simple > > venn diagram of excellent engineering and > > excellent people skills do not always have > > a large overlap. > > > > And I vote for people for FESCo based on > > their engineering views and not their ability > > to deal with people issues (as far as I know, > > we don't even ask questions about their > > people skills). > > > > That suggests that perhaps FESCo should > > not be the place where people issues are > > handled. > > > > The experience from the recent Kent Overstreet > > experience IRT the Linux Kernel suggests that > > one should separate the people part from the > > engineering part. In the case of the kernel > > they had their CoC committee. > > > > I was under the (mistaken?) understanding > > that there was also a Fedora Code of Conduct > > committee. It would seem that FESCo > > should have referred this issue to them, and > > that the CoCc would have made the decision > > and taken responsibility for the notifications > > and actions. > > > > Did I misunderstand the existence of the > > Code of Conduct committee, or that this > > issue should have been under their purview? > > Both "packager" and "provenpackager" group memberships are clearly > within FESCo's purview, > > see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/ > and > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#revoking > > Fabio > -- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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-le...@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
