On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 3:05 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 08:22:45PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [28/05/2025 15:24] :
> > >
> > > No, I don't think we'll make the issue public. Among other reasons,
> > > there is a lot of dis
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 08:22:45PM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [28/05/2025 15:24] :
> >
> > No, I don't think we'll make the issue public. Among other reasons,
> > there is a lot of discussion about personal matters. Making it publicly
> > visible would go against
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek [28/05/2025 15:24] :
>
> No, I don't think we'll make the issue public. Among other reasons,
> there is a lot of discussion about personal matters. Making it publicly
> visible would go against the goal of avoiding making this public.
Back in December, we were told th
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
On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 06:09:15PM +0200, Simon de Vlieger wrote:
> Hey Matthew (and rest of council),
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2025, at 5:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven
> > Packager rights from a contributor.
>
> The linked issue
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 proces
On Thu, 2025-05-22 at 11:15 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> 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
> announcemen
>
> Is the *middle* of an election cycle -- when some have already voted --
> really the time for this? Couldn't this have been done beforehand? Is
> FESCo planning on responding to this also during the elections?
>
All parties - Council, FESCo and Peter, were aware beforehand that the
council i
On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 19:20, Roy Bekken wrote:
>
> FESCO stated they was assembling the facts back in december but wanted to
> discuss it with the revoked person first.
I had a conversation with a member of FESCo and the FPL about the
situation some time ago.
> I’ve have not seen anymore on th
FESCO stated they was assembling the facts back in december but wanted to
discuss it with the revoked person first.
I’ve have not seen anymore on that since then so I assume they are still
working on it
On Thu, 22 May 2025 at 19:08, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> On 5/22/25 11:15, Matthew Miller wr
On 5/22/25 11:15, Matthew Miller wrote:
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
i
Hey Matthew (and rest of council),
On Thu, May 22, 2025, at 5:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> The Fedora Council overturns FESCo's decision [3284] to remove Proven
> Packager rights from a contributor.
The linked issue is private, are there plans to make it public in some
form or shape so we can s
12 matches
Mail list logo
