I am unable to process a large proposal such as this quickly. I am swamped with work and will be on EuroPython for the majority of the next week. Goog guidelines need time, not rush.

I am unable to process a large proposal such as this quickly. I am swamped with work and will be on EuroPython for the majority of the next week. Goog guidelines need time, not rush.

I agree in principle, but we need something in place for the next round of this current change discussion. (I'd argue for this even if we weren't using Discourse.) Unless we are going to ask for the next revision of this change to be delayed until after Flock — which is a possibility! — we need something better now. It doesn't have to be perfect.

FWIW, I think most of what I've proposed is non-controversial. Of note, though:

1. Zero-tolerance policy on personal attacks, even edge cases. Without a clear statement to that effect in place already, we took a light touch to avoid accusations of censorship (and got those anyway). I think this was very detrimental and ... not how we want things in Fedora. I'd like FESCo affirmation of this.
2. Using breakout topics to try to sort things is controversial. I have a proposal which I think will improve things, but others have alternate ideas. I'd like FESCo to choose, please.

I am unable to process a large proposal such as this quickly. I am swamped with work and will be on EuroPython for the majority of the next week. Goog guidelines need time, not rush.

I agree in principle, but we need something in place for the next round of this current change discussion. (I'd argue for this even if we weren't using Discourse.) Unless we are going to ask for the next revision of this change to be delayed until after Flock — which is a possibility! — we need something better now. It doesn't have to be perfect.

Maybe that's a good idea anyways. I think this discussion needs a cool off period.

@amoloney I think probably that's a good idea -- I don't think I can handle more of this and write my State of Fedora talk. :)

I added my thoughts at https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/proposed-guidelines-for-discussion-of-proposed-changes/85904/36

as treebeard says... "don't be hasty". :)

Hello all,

There is another F40 change proposal submitted, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SQLAlchemy_2 but wanted to check in here first to see if I can go ahead and announce on discourse again as per the decision to move discussion to that forum for F40 changes and beyond, or would it be better to wait for a little bit while these guidelines are being refined before posting the next change proposal?

Thanks!

I assume this is going to be less controversial... so I'd say it's fine to continue for now, and give us more time to look at the proposed Moderation changes. Speaking for myself, I've been busy landing things before the mass rebuild and working on other things, so I haven't even had time to look at the proposed changes.

-1 to fast-track procedure for this. There's a bunch of details to figure out, and we want to word-smith things a bit. I agree that it'd be nice to have this in place, but it's just too much and too complicated and too contentious.

The proposal itself is good, I'd be happy to give a positive vote. (I'm not doing that yet because I expect that there'll be another revision based on the feedback.)

Using breakout topics to try to sort things is controversial.

Yeah. After reading the discussion, I'd be inclined to try the next discussion without break-outs. Based on the experience with the Telemetry Proposal, I think that the problem was that there were too many break-out topics. This both created a lot of work for moderators, and fractured the discussion, leading to repetitions. I think that sometimes they can be useful, if there's topic that is clearly separate, but most of the time, it'd be better to have one big thread.

@mattdm on discussion.fp.o you said you'll prepare another draft. We're waiting ;)