On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:39 PM John M. Harris Jr <joh...@splentity.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 8:22:00 AM MST Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 11:09, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@gnome.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 10:26 am, Stephen Gallagher
> > > <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > For the record, as this directly affects the Workstation deliverable,
> > > > I will be voting -1 until and unless the Workstation WG votes in
> > > > favor.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it's a large set of Change owners, but since only two of them are
> > > > Workstation WG members, they are not representative of that group.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Workstation WG hat on:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think there's any need to vote -1 for that reason alone. The
> > > Workstation WG has discussed the change proposal at several meetings
> > > recently (really, we've spent a long time on this), and frankly we were
> > > not making a ton of progress towards reaching a decision either way, so
> > > going forward with the change proposal and moving the discussion to
> > > devel@ to get feedback from a wider audience and from FESCo seemed like
> > > a good idea. Most likely, we'll wind up doing whatever FESCo chooses
> > > here, but unless FESCo were to explicitly indicate intent to override
> > > the Workstation WG, we would not consider a FESCo decision to limit
> > > what the Workstation WG can do with the Workstation product. At least,
> > > my understanding of the power structure FESCo has established is that
> > > the WG can make product-specific decisions that differ from FESCo's
> > > decisions whenever we want, unless FESCo says otherwise (because FESCo
> > > always has final say). That is, if FESCo were to approve btrfs by
> > > default, but Workstation WG were to vote to stick with ext4, then we
> > > would stick with ext4 unless FESCo were to say "no really, you need to
> > > switch to btfs" (which I highly doubt would happen). So I don't see any
> > > reason to vote -1 here out of concern for overriding the WG.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > The problem is that the request as discussed reads as "FESCo says use
> > it for workstation" vs "FESCo has no problem with Workstation saying
> > they want btrfs" or "FESCo says use btrfs as default". Yes it says
> > "desktop variants" but only 1 variant really counts and that is
> > Workstation. So yes, either Workstation agrees to it or it isn't
> > getting voted on. If Workstation can't come to an agreement on it,
> > then the proposal is dead.  Anything else is an end-run and a useless
> > trolling of people to see how many rants LWN counts in its weekly
> > messages.
>
> Well, it's not only Workstation that this proposal is trying to throw btrfs
> on, but the other desktops as well, such as KDE Spin.

How is that even a thing? Shouldn't a spin maintainer be responsible
for choosing the defaults of their spin?  This proposal seems fairly
absurd in the regard of dictating what other people should do.
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to