On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:16 pm, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> wrote:
The issue isn't that you haven't done your work. It is that it looks
like you were set up to fail. The email from Michael comes across that
Workstation couldn't make a decision and told you to go see if FESCO
would approve it... but even then they don't have to follow through on
it because they are independent. So all that work, all the tantrums
from people who just love to fly off the handle on anything, all that
bull.. is for essentially nothing. Because in the end, if FESCO does
approve it, it means every spin etc is stuck with it while Workstation
can decide not to... even though they sent you to get the decision.
That is where if I was on FESCO I would say this proposal is dead.
Either a Working Group wants something and will fight for it, or they
don't. If they don't and have veto authority over anything FESCO
says.. then it doesn't matter what FESCO decides.

At this point, we're discussing a weird corner case where FESCo approves this change proposal and then the WG does not. I guess it's my fault for suggesting that might occur, but it's really not a very likely scenario. Reality is that the WG members are not filesystem experts and after several weeks of discussing the issue, it became clear that we need more feedback from a larger group of developers. That's what the systemwide change proposal process is designed for.

And to be clear, FESCo has veto authority over the WG, not the other way around. The WG was actually created by FESCo itself. I think technically we're a subcommittee of FESCo. Of course we certainly expect that we can ship Fedora Workstation with different defaults than the rest of Fedora, to the extent FESCo continues to allow that.


devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to