Wednesday, April 1, 2020

Re: A Community Change process to mirror the System Change process

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:08 PM Ankur Sinha <> wrote:
> > If this isn't sufficient for community, then I don't know what can be done.
> > I followed the System Change process, and to be honest, it is time consuming
> > but worked fine.
> Exactly. So, even though it was a community change, you ended up using
> the System Change process---because no community change process is
> currently in place.
But it also had a significant technical component, so even if there
was a community change process in place, it might have better fit the
engineering changes process anyway.

I think that's part of what I'm struggling with here: how do we define
the scope? If there are two separate processes, how do we decide which
one is appropriate? Some are obvious, but there are a lot of gray
areas. The Weblate migration and the Ask Fedora migration are two
examples of things that could have fit in either category. Weblate
moreso because it's tied to a release, whereas Ask could have been an
Objective (Objectives don't have to be technical) or a mini-objective
if such a thing existed. Which brings me back to the thought that we
don't need a new capital-p Process, we need to do a better job of
making our existing communication more visible.

Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
council-discuss mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:

No comments:

Post a Comment