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 -- _______________________________________________ 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
