I agree that the current process does not fit well into the current / modern times. PR workflow on git repo with markdown sounds to me like a solid step forward.
The discourse split is bad. In my experience, while it achieved more people contributing to the discussion, managing that discussion in parallel across multiple places is, in my opinion, a terrible experience for the change owners. -- I have another suggestion for the Change process in general: Move the Change submission deadlines one or two weeks earlier. In practice, if you submit a Self Contained Change on the deadline day, it's nearly impossible to meet the 'Change Checkpoint: Completion deadline (testable)'. It has to be noticed, announced, discussed and voted on by FESCo, ... all of that takes at least a week, in practice always more, leaving you with aproximatelly 2-3 days, or less, to land it It is best for everyone to propose changes ASAP. Though I believe submitting anything on the deadline is fine - that's why deadlines exist. But the deadlines should be realistic for the rest of the process. -- Michal Schorm Senior Software Engineer Databases Team Red Hat -- On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 5:20 AM Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2026 at 8:21 PM Maxwell G <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I've been thinking about the Changes Process recently and how we can >> improve it for Change Owners, Change Wranglers, FESCo members, and >> participants in Change discussion and feedback. > > > I would also like to suggest that if/when > a consequential change is made in a > change proposal (reasonings, justifications, > scope of work, perhaps others?) that the > current change proposal is rendered > moot and a new one must be proposed > for discussion (which would be allowed > to be resubmitted after the usual > deadlines as long as the essential > original intent is maintained (unlike > some US Congress bills where the entire > text is replaced for a completely different > law or purpose to skip certain steps). > > Yes, consequential is in the eye of the > beholder, but I think we would know it > when we see it (and a few recent > change proposals have, in my eye, > changed consequentially during the > proposal). > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new -- _______________________________________________ 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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
