On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:21 Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:04 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> One thing I'll note here: this is *exactly* the kind of thing that
> > would have come to light very quickly if the open process which was
> > committed to at the start had actually been followed through on.
>
> You are absolutely right. I screwed up.
Just to be clear, by that comment I was referring to the whole stuff
about open meetings and calls and things that were supposed to happen
before the decision was made, but which CPE called off because the
decision was "obvious".
That was not the case and I have explained this several times. There was an open discussion on the Fedora requirements before they were finalized. There was not an open discussion on the entire list end to end for reasons I have already stated as cross stakeholder analysis with no recourse for all stakeholders involved was not something that would have added value. I stand over that and again I apologise for not looping the entire stakeholder group in.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@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/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
No comments:
Post a Comment