On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 19:55 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org>
said:
> It's not actually something that is part of the Change's scope,
> but an alternative way to try and achieve the same goal: the
> overall thought process was "well, what the Change proposer really
> wants is to reduce the likelihood of compromise via password
> access to the root account,
So, why didn't this change have to go through a proposal? The
original change was rejected (which should show there is
disagreement about this), so such a change should not just be pushed
without open discussion.
There's no policy (AFAIK) on what is and is not a Change. FESCo has
the power to effectively declare something to be a Change (and thus
subject to review and so forth) if it decides to do so, but there's
nothing beyond that. And as I said to otherChris, 'without open
discussion' is just plainly false. There's a ton of 'open discussion',
spread across three mailing lists.
If there is disagreement about this change, is there no recourse?
Or do anaconda devs get to determine system policy now on their own?
Eh, that seems like a pointlessly loaded question. I mean, in a sense,
sure, they always have. They *write the installer*. That's always
going to involve some degree of 'determining system policy', if you
interpret that phrase broadly enough. What do you want, every anaconda
commit to go through a committee review phase?
And 'recourse' seems like such a weird word that, again, I don't
really know how to reply to it. You can discuss the decision, in a
respectful fashion, here or on devel@ or on anaconda-devel-list@. You
can take it up with FESCo. You could also, of course, wait more than
one lousy day to give the devs a chance to reply before whipping up a
storm of righteous indignation, but so often that seems too much to
ask?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net