On 11/27/06, Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> Why not send that signal through an open election? > > I think that's not enough for now as we did quite bad with setting the > sign "we seriously want the community involved in Fedora" in the past years. Then, imho, we've got the same problem in reverse. Saying that "50% of the F-star board is guaranteed to be non-RH" is every bit as bad as saying that "50% of the F-star board is guaranteed to be RH." The people who do the work of building packages for Fedora decide what the governance of F-star is. Full stop. We shouldn't try to address problems of perception by making arbitrary decisions in the present. We should decide what is right, and do it.
If the problems do occur, then a parliamentary system could be the best 'solution'. The house of Red Hats are those that are appointed by the 'King' and the house of Blue Hats are those elected by the commons. The limits on what each house can do is up to the unwritten constitution :). -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
