Thank you.
Leslie Satenstein
On Monday, December 16, 2024 at 05:03:22 p.m. EST, Adam Williamson
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
> We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In some
> cases we were dealing with situations where reporters wanted to remain
> anonymous
This strikes me as problematic.
Why should there be a right to anonymity in this process? This is
essentially a technical/process dispute, right? I see no indication
that Peter has been accused of a particularly heinous crime or a CoC
violation or anything like that. I'm having trouble seeing how anything
that doesn't rise to that level could warrant a process involving
anonymity for 'reporters' and behind-closed-doors FESCo discussions.
Has there been any suggestion that anyone would maliciously target
folks who raised honest concerns about Peter's (or anyone else's) PP
actions? If not, why the secrecy?
--
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @[email protected]
https://www.happyassassin.net
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
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/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
