The blocker reasoning makes sense to me.

BetaBlocker +1

Well, the bit cited is about "severity" and "priority" in a Bugzilla sense, not a security sense. We have an explicit criterion for security issues, but it's Final, not Beta: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Final_Release_Criteria#Security_bugs

If downgrade from 97 to 96 causes problems I could be +1 for that, though.

Yes, a downgrade from 97 to 96 causes problems. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2057193#c5

Not sure if this justifies a blocker, but at least:

BetaFE +1

I think it should be a beta freeze exception, so the downgrade can be prevented.

But I'm not sure if it is a necessary beta blocker, because even if the new package will be only in the updates repository and not in the iso image / base repository then if updates repository is also enabled during upgrade F35 -> F36 dnf will pick the newer package from updates repository.

So the package firefox 97 needs to be in updates repository at release date. It should be at least something like a 0-day-blocker for beta?

BetaFE +1

BetaBlocker +1
BetaFE +1

I often do updates from install media and it's entirely possible I may use Firefox before the first update. Based on the comments above it's likely I would experience breakage, including the possibility of not being able to login to FAS (stretching from the reported upstream bug behavior).

So, completing the logical stretching exercise, I'm voting blocker because "The web browser must be able to download files, load extensions (if applicable), and log into FAS." according to the required applications basic criteria.

AGREED AcceptedBetaBlocker

Discussed during the 2022-02-28 blocker review meeting: [0]

The decision to classify this bug as an "AcceptedBlocker (Beta)" was made as it violates the following Basic and Beta criteria:

"The web browser must be able to download files, load extensions (if applicable), and log into FAS"
"All known bugs that can cause corruption of user data must be fixed or documented at Common F36 bugs"

We also cite the Beta blocker catch-all wording, that "A bug is considered a Beta blocker bug if ... Bug hinders execution of required Beta test plans or dramatically reduces test coverage" - we believe this bug would have that effect, as it would prevent people who would otherwise upgrade to the Beta and help test from doing so.

[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2022-02-28/f36-blocker-review.2022-02-28-17.00.txt

The following votes have been closed:

• Accepted BetaBlocker (+2, 0, -0)
  • +1 by bcotton, nielsenb

AGREED AcceptedBetaFE

The following votes have been closed:

• Accepted BetaFreezeException (+3, 0, -0)
  • +1 by churchyard, imsedgar, nielsenb

Release F36 is no longer tracked by BlockerBugs, closing this ticket.