11:42 a.m.
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:07 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Leigh Griffin
<lgriffin(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list,
> > then? If this is supposed to be an open process?
> @Ben Cotton can oblige here, it's not my place to share it without a stakeholder
approval.
The list sent to CPE is below. While there was no intent to hide it
(it can be reconstructed from the council-discuss thread), it was a
mistake on my part to not explicitly post this at the end of the
discussion.
As a Fedora contributor, I want the git forge to integrate with FAS so
that it can use FAS to provide authentication and authorization.
As a Fedora contributor, I want the git forge to integrate with
fedora-messaging so that it can be a part of automatic workflows.
As a Fedora contributor, I want it to be easy to add new contributors
to a project (and optionally to enable self-adding) so that joining
new teams is low-friction.
[snip]
Uh...wow.
So, Leigh was correct, and the F/OSS and self-hosting requirements are
entirely removed from this list. Not adjusted or de-emphasized or given
nuance, but simply removed entirely.
I highly dispute the idea that the removal of the F/OSS requirement
could be "reconstructed" from that initial list plus the discussion at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedor...
. I do not believe that is the case at all. Matthew's comment is
confusing and ambiguous, and there was no follow-up to it (at least,
not the F/OSS part of it), and it seems extremely questionable to me
that we would remove such a fundamental requirement based solely on one
confused comment from Matthew. He is the FPL, he is not the Pope.
The end result of this is that we (Fedora) have somehow indicated to
CPE that we have no preference whatsoever for F/OSS tooling. I do not
believe that should have been the case.
The self-hosting requirement at least Matthew was more clear in opining
should be removed, but it is still surprising to me that the process
here went "gather a list of requirements from the community, then if
Matt says he disagrees with one, take it out immediately but don't tell
anyone you did that"! (also I'll note that his substitute requirement
that out-migration be easy does not appear to be captured in the final
list, although it seems this probably *is* the case with Gitlab so we
don't have a problem there.)
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.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
12:04 p.m.
New subject: CPE Git Forge Decision
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:42 PM Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
The end result of this is that we (Fedora) have somehow indicated to
CPE that we have no preference whatsoever for F/OSS tooling. I do not
believe that should have been the case.
For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to
not leave that in as a user story. I own that. I did that because of
the unanimously-adopted[1] Council position that "The Fedora Project
wants to advance free and open source software and as a pragmatic
matter we recognize that some infrastructure needs may be best served
by using closed source or non-free tools today. Therefore the Council
is willing to accept closed source or non-free tools in Fedora’s
infrastructure where free and open source tools are not viable or not
available."
You're right that it should have remained in.
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.
[1] https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-council-december-2018-hack...
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
12:18 p.m.
New subject: CPE Git Forge Decision
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder
that
FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to
not leave that in as a user story. I own that. I did that because of
Eh, I remember it somewhat differently. I don't think that _it is our strong
preference and very important to our community that this be open source_ is
a _functional_ requirement, and doesn't really fit as a user story. So we
pulled that out and emphasized it separately rather than leaving it as one
among many in the list.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
12:20 p.m.
New subject: CPE Git Forge Decision
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
> FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to
> not leave that in as a user story. I own that. I did that because of
Eh, I remember it somewhat differently. I don't think that _it is our strong
preference and very important to our community that this be open source_ is
a _functional_ requirement, and doesn't really fit as a user story. So we
pulled that out and emphasized it separately rather than leaving it as one
among many in the list.
Can Leigh comment on whether this was then considered in the decision
process based on the summarized user stories, or was it lost?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:30 p.m.
New subject: CPE Git Forge Decision
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:22 Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
> > FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to
> > not leave that in as a user story. I own that. I did that because of
>
> Eh, I remember it somewhat differently. I don't think that _it is our
strong
> preference and very important to our community that this be open source_
is
> a _functional_ requirement, and doesn't really fit as a user story. So we
> pulled that out and emphasized it separately rather than leaving it as
one
> among many in the list.
Can Leigh comment on whether this was then considered in the decision
process based on the summarized user stories, or was it lost?
We read it and like the wording implied it was a strong preference. It was
not a requirement and it did not bind our decision not did emotive
discussions or other comments, we dealt with the requirements at hand. It
will certainly influence our decision to opt for Gitlab CE for the Fedora
preference to stay open source.
--
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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
council-discuss-leave(a)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.fedor...
2:11 p.m.
New subject: CPE Git Forge Decision
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 19:30 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:22 Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 13:18 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
> > > FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to
> > > not leave that in as a user story. I own that. I did that because of
> >
> > Eh, I remember it somewhat differently. I don't think that _it is our
> strong
> > preference and very important to our community that this be open source_
> is
> > a _functional_ requirement, and doesn't really fit as a user story. So we
> > pulled that out and emphasized it separately rather than leaving it as
> one
> > among many in the list.
>
> Can Leigh comment on whether this was then considered in the decision
> process based on the summarized user stories, or was it lost?
>
We read it and like the wording implied it was a strong preference. It was
not a requirement and it did not bind our decision not did emotive
discussions or other comments, we dealt with the requirements at hand. It
will certainly influence our decision to opt for Gitlab CE for the Fedora
preference to stay open source.
Thanks for stating that, it's helpful.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
12:20 p.m.
New subject: CPE Git Forge Decision
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".
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
1:28 p.m.
New subject: CPE Git Forge Decision
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:21 Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
council-discuss-leave(a)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.fedor...
2:16 p.m.
New subject: CPE Git Forge Decision
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 19:28 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 18:21 Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)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.
But there wasn't an open discussion on the finalized list, or on the
summarized list. That would have been the point at which this gap could
have been spotted.
Still, if the F/OSS requirement was communicated in some other way and
was not *entirely* lost in the process of user story evaluation (as, to
be fair, the rejection of Github implies), the situation is certainly
not as bad as it first seemed.
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.
I'm referring to this specific promise which was made in the initial
description of the process:
"Additionally, a live video call and associated IRC meetings will be
held and advertised in advance to discuss the requirements, talk about
concerns and address any questions."
That, AFAIK, did not happen. If it *had* happened, that would have been
precisely the point at which someone would have looked at the list and
said "hey, wait, why does it not say anything at all about F/OSS?", and
the discussion we've had here over the last two days could have
happened there instead. Which, I'm pretty sure, would have added quite
a lot of value.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:08 p.m.
New subject: CPE Git Forge Decision
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020, 17:42 Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 12:07 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Leigh Griffin <lgriffin(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > > Can we *please* see the final actual definitely official Fedora list,
> > > then? If this is supposed to be an open process?
> > @Ben Cotton can oblige here, it's not my place to share it without a
stakeholder approval.
>
> The list sent to CPE is below. While there was no intent to hide it
> (it can be reconstructed from the council-discuss thread), it was a
> mistake on my part to not explicitly post this at the end of the
> discussion.
>
> As a Fedora contributor, I want the git forge to integrate with FAS so
> that it can use FAS to provide authentication and authorization.
>
> As a Fedora contributor, I want the git forge to integrate with
> fedora-messaging so that it can be a part of automatic workflows.
>
> As a Fedora contributor, I want it to be easy to add new contributors
> to a project (and optionally to enable self-adding) so that joining
> new teams is low-friction.
[snip]
Uh...wow.
So, Leigh was correct,
Disclaimer that this is not aimed at you Adam, it's a broad statement. It's
a shame that the perception is that I'm not correct or truthful on points
like this. I can see why that might be the case given problems with the
communication flow but know this, what I stated in all of my replies is
truthful and up front about how we evaluated and discussed this. Whether we
got it perfect or could have done things differently is another discussion.
and the F/OSS and self-hosting requirements are
entirely removed from this list. Not adjusted or de-emphasized or
given
nuance, but simply removed entirely.
I highly dispute the idea that the removal of the F/OSS requirement
could be "reconstructed" from that initial list plus the discussion at
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/council-discuss@lists.fedor...
. I do not believe that is the case at all. Matthew's comment is
confusing and ambiguous, and there was no follow-up to it (at least,
not the F/OSS part of it), and it seems extremely questionable to me
that we would remove such a fundamental requirement based solely on one
confused comment from Matthew. He is the FPL, he is not the Pope.
The end result of this is that we (Fedora) have somehow indicated to
CPE that we have no preference whatsoever for F/OSS tooling. I do not
believe that should have been the case.
The self-hosting requirement at least Matthew was more clear in opining
should be removed, but it is still surprising to me that the process
here went "gather a list of requirements from the community, then if
Matt says he disagrees with one, take it out immediately but don't tell
anyone you did that"! (also I'll note that his substitute requirement
that out-migration be easy does not appear to be captured in the final
list, although it seems this probably *is* the case with Gitlab so we
don't have a problem there.)
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.
It may have caught that for sure but it would have opened a lot more
problems as stakeholders try to counter each others requirements with new
more specific requirements to influence the decision. The approach taken,
for better or worse evaluated it at a functional level without that noise
factor. The trade off is losing an opportunity like this, however it could
have been picked up several other ways and Ben has already apologised for
not sharing back the final list.
--
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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
council-discuss-leave(a)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.fedor...
1477
days inactive
1477
days old
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
10 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Adam Williamson -
Ben Cotton -
Leigh Griffin -
Matthew Miller