On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 9:36 AM Alex Scheel <asch...@redhat.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nicolas Mailhot via devel" <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > > Cc: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mail...@laposte.net> > > Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 9:10:56 AM > > Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04 > > > > Le lundi 06 avril 2020 à 08:19 -0400, Alex Scheel a écrit : > > > > > > It'd be interesting to see if the FESCo election system could be > > > repurposed to get a sense of all packagers' opinions, rather than > > > make assumptions on how the community as a whole feels based on a few > > > vocal members and their participation in the mailing lists. > > > > > > Fedora guidelines ask Fedora packagers to subscribe to the devel list, > > so it’s the official place to reach Fedora packagers. > > That's not the point I was making. > > Not everyone is inclined to loudly argue their positions on the mailing > list. There have only been 12 unique participants to this thread and 57 > to the other thread. > > That isn't indicative of the entire Fedora packager ecosystem. A lot of > people are staying silent. > > > I believe we need a different way to engage the rest of our packager > base.
I'm a packager who has been staying silent, but I generally strongly agree with the points that Adam, Miro, Neal, and others have been making with a few caveats: * I don't _really_ mind if we wind up using Gitlab over Pagure, but if we do, I do feel pretty strongly that we should use Gitlab CE and self-host it-- I don't think it would be right for Fedora to use an externally hosted solution and I don't think we should use the enterprise edition. * I don't like how this process has been conducted, and I think that official responses from CPE thus far haven't really made things better-- if anything, the "we apologize, but this is the decision we've made" attitude is making things worse. * I fear that, once again, we haven't adequately understood the consequences of replacing pagure and some of the features that were recently-- finally!-- added to it in order to replace missing pkgdb2 functionality will again be lost for a long period of time... and nothing I've read in any of these threads so far has helped reassure me that's not the case. Not saying you're wrong that it would be nice to have the ability to poll a broader selection of packagers. But I'm not sure using the FESCo voting system would really accomplish that either. How many people actually vote in FESCo elections relative to the number of active packagers? I'm sure you could argue that, depending on the turnout, the results wouldn't be necessarily representative either. Ben Rosser _______________________________________________ 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
