On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:58:56PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi writes:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_meeting_process
> >
> > "Make sure to check with and invite stakeholders who may not be CC'd in
> > the issue. Consider deferring issue if stakeholders have not had
Kevin Fenzi writes:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_meeting_process
>
> "Make sure to check with and invite stakeholders who may not be CC'd in
> the issue. Consider deferring issue if stakeholders have not had
> adequate notice and are not available for discussion."
>
> Perhaps it should
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:31:21PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Ben Cotton writes:
>
> > [...] I agree that enabling it for the fesco project would be
> > good. It's probably insufficient, though. When the meeting chair sends
> > the agenda, adding the owners on cc or bcc so that they get
Ben Cotton writes:
> [...] I agree that enabling it for the fesco project would be
> good. It's probably insufficient, though. When the meeting chair sends
> the agenda, adding the owners on cc or bcc so that they get reminded
> of time/location/etc is important.
Since this gets overlooked
On 07. 07. 21 17:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
Is there scope for having self-contained changes implicitly
approved 2 weeks after being posted to Fedora devel list
in absence of controversy ? In that 2 week period, if someone
raises an objection that does not get a satisfactorily resolved
through
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:46 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:56:43AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm far less convinced FESCo formally voting is beneficial
> > > for (uncontroversial)
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:56:43AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> > I'm far less convinced FESCo formally voting is beneficial
> > for (uncontroversial) self-contained changes, where the goal
> > of the maintainer is largely just to make
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:25 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:23 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:20 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >
> > > Does Pagure send notification email on label changes? Could that be a
> > > way to notice an upcoming meeting?
> > >
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:22 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if the process we're following (as it is defined today)
> > is actually beneficial for self-contained changes ? Did having a
> > vote which rejected the change actually
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:23 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:20 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > Does Pagure send notification email on label changes? Could that be a
> > way to notice an upcoming meeting?
> >
>
> It can be configured to do so on a per-project basis. We
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:20 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Ben Cotton:
>
> > It wouldn't have even come up in a meeting except there were a couple
> > of FESCo members opposed to it. If we're going to change processes,
> > perhaps the better change is to explicitly invite people to the
> >
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> I wonder if the process we're following (as it is defined today)
> is actually beneficial for self-contained changes ? Did having a
> vote which rejected the change actually improve Fedora, or was
> it just busy work that is better
* Ben Cotton:
> It wouldn't have even come up in a meeting except there were a couple
> of FESCo members opposed to it. If we're going to change processes,
> perhaps the better change is to explicitly invite people to the
> meeting when their Change proposal is on the agenda.
It probably would
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:38 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:09:47PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Hans de Goede:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >>> * Neal Gompa:
On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 03:09:47PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Hans de Goede:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>> * Neal Gompa:
> >>>
> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >>>
> >>> We have a mandate
Hi,
On 7/7/21 2:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Hans de Goede:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> * Neal Gompa:
>>>
Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>>
>>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>>> Guile. Naturally that makes
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 8:14 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Hans de Goede:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Neal Gompa:
> >>
> >>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
> >>
> >> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> >> Guile.
* Hans de Goede:
> Hi,
>
> On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Neal Gompa:
>>
>>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>>
>> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
>> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
>
> So I've gone and checked the
18 matches
Mail list logo
