Hi FESCo, On behalf of FESCo, please accept our apology for how we communicated the > news regarding the revocation of provenpackager privileges for Peter > Robinson. This one was really difficult for us to figure out how best to > communicate and we have made mistakes. > > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In > some cases we were dealing with situations where reporters wanted to remain > anonymous and we are trying to respect that.) > > What are we doing right now? > > - We are currently assembling the list so we can share it with everyone, > but FESCo first wants to discuss it with Peter. >
To be clear I don't think FESCo should be marking it's own homework here. There are 9 members of FESCo, if one member can't raise concerns about the process or even engage with the individual over the situation I don't think FESCo is going to be impartial in the review of what has happened. I have filed a ticket with the council requesting an independent review of the incident because as it stands I don't trust FESCo to be partial or independent here. I have not made it public because I don't feel a bunch of me too/+1 comments are useful. FESCo has a representative on the council (if the docs are correct that is David Cantrell) so they have a representative to review that should they wish to and whoever does that review will no doubt be speaking with them anyway. > - We are discussing revising/updating the provenpackager policies (or at > least the wording) as well as FESCo's policies around handling situations > related to provenpackager. > I don't believe FESCo should be doing that either, TBH I have never felt FESCo should be the owner of that process, the FESCo acronym stands for "Fedora Engineering Steering Committees). Traditionally a steering committee is exactly that, it takes input from other committees to make decisions to steer the project. They are not the lawmakers, the judge or the executioners. I don't believe there is enough distance between the engineering (packaging in this case) and the creation of rules and the enforcement of the rules and this creates a conflict of interest. As a result of this I believe in light of the current situation and example FESCo should step back because I feel that now that FESCo is in the spotlight that they won't be impartial to the process and it may be adjusted not in the interest of the project as a whole but to help justify their actions of the current situation. > Please bear with us as we gather all of the information. It has been > noted already, but this is the first time FESCo has been asked to remove > provenpackager privileges > Yet as a result of the fact that it's the first time they didn't ask anyone to check over their homework before they publicly executed it. That speaks volumes!
-- _______________________________________________ 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
